Ill 



':Wl 



lii 



III' 



Hi 



I 



-0^ 



,'N 



THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE 



FORTHCOMING 
THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE 

PART CONCERNING THE RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY 

It will contain chapters on the Colonies, the Repub- 
lic, the Constitution, Early Parties and Sectional 
Divisions, the Federal Judiciary and the States, and 
a complete history of the Missouri Compromise. 



THE 



Sectional S 



ECTIONAL OTRUGGLE 



AN ACCOUNT OF THE TROUBLES BETWEEN 

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, FROM 

THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE 

CLOSE OF THE CIVIL WAR 



FIRST PERIOD 

ENDING WITH THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. PART CONCERNING 
THE EARLY TARIFFS AND NULLIFICATION 



BY 

CICERO W. HARRIS 




PHILADELPHIA AND LONDON 

J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 
1902 



THE LIBRARY ©F 

FEB. 20 "190? 

pVfJIOHT 6N'»'HV 

CLaSS «> XXo. No. 

!_ Z^ W- 4- fc^ 

COPY a 



Copyright, 190li 

BY 

Cicero W. Harris 



Published February, 1902 






ELECTROTYPEO AND PRINTED BY J. B. LtPPINCOTT COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA, U.S.A. 



IN MEMORY 

OF 

MY MOTHER 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Prefaces ; 9, 13 

CHAPTER I. 
Transition 15 

CHAPTER 11. 
The Takipf— 1789-1820 33 

CHAPTER III. 
The Tariff— 1820-1828 73 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Debate of 1830 and Other Events 146 

CHAPTER V. 
Nullification and the Compromise of 1833 230 



Index 335 



GENERAL PREFACE. 



A FULL-LENGTH view of the long political and constitu- 
tional struggle between the Worth and the South is a 
desideratum in American history. The time has perhaps 
come when the more thoughtful people of both sections 
are ready to receive the story of the first part of that great 
conflict of ideas. The qualifications of an historian of 
a civil contest having many phases and stretching over a 
vast period are the high qualifications of candor, impar- 
tiality, calmness, courage, love of truth for its own sake, 
ability to see facts from all sides, and skill and power to 
express them in their proper connection with ease, dignity, 
clearness, precision, and force. Feeling the lack of some 
of these qualifications, but imbued with a deep sense of 
their value and of the importance of consecration in such 
a work, I have devoted my spare time from professional 
labor for many years to the collection of materials and the 
composition therefrom of an elaborate account of the sec- 
tional troubles in this country from a time anterior to the 
formation of the present governments to the adoption of 
the tarifiT compromise of 1833. This is equivalent to 
making a natural division of the sectional struggle into 
three parts: 1. That from 1787, or earlier, to 1833. 2. 
That from 1833 to 1850, the era of the second great slavery 
compromise after the inauguration of the present Federal 
government, that of 1820 being the first. 3. That from 
the compromise of 1850 to the close of the Civil War. 
Some materials for a history of the second period have 
been accumulated ; but that is an independent work. K 
that work is never completed, the volumes already prepared 
will have such value as they may be found to have without 

9 



10 GENERAL PREFACE. 

regard to the volumes which, if ever published, will tell 
the story of the later periods of the mighty conflict. 

The history of the relations between the North and the 
South is varied in details and profoundly interesting. No 
chapters of political history have a greater charm for stu- 
dents of government, and certainly to the American nothing 
in human history yields so rich a fruitage. I have thought 
that a work separated from the general political history of 
the United States and devoted exclusively to this special 
field would not be without utility. Such a work, written 
in a plain style and adapted to popular wants, but with a 
critical purpose, — a work at once full in the major essen- 
tials and succinct in the minor, — I have endeavored to con- 
struct, with infinite care as to data and great catholicity in 
the handling of vexed questions. The imposing collection 
of books, pamphlets, documents, periodicals, and news- 
papers in the Library of Congress, including the debates 
and journals of Congress, the reports and digests of de- 
cisions in the United States courts, and State histories, 
legislative proceedings, etc., has been drawn upon for 
original sources of information, very little use having been 
made of the general histories of the republic, except to 
supply such materials as could not otherwise be obtained. 
The general plan of the work is to treat events in classes, 
topically, as far as practicable, but there is a sequence in 
the events of each subdivision. The book, as first prepared 
for publication, opens with some account of the colonies, — 
their origin, their mental and moral characteristics, their 
religion, their polity, their civilization, their difierences 
from, as well as their likenesses to, each other. Following 
are a history of the origin of the republic of republics, 
including the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
States; a critical review of early parties; a summary ac- 
count of early movements for disintegrating the Union; a 
chapter on slavery North and South before 1820 ; several 
chapters on the great compromise of that year, agreed to 
finally in 1821 ; the relations of the Federal judiciary with 
the individual States; the campaigns of 1824 and 1828; 



GENERAL PREFACE. 11 

and, finally, the tariff legislation from 1789 to the act of 
1833, with the climax of nullification. The debate of 1830 
and the still greater debate of 1833 in the Senate are stated 
more fully, perhaps, than elsewhere in any single volume 
yet issued. All the side lights in these and other sectional 
discussions that are obtainable are furnished at great pains 
of search and collocation. The Virginia anti-slavery dis- 
cussions and the Kat Turner insurrection figure in the 
story. Such characters as George Mason, Roger Sherman, 
James Wilson, "William Lowndes, and Robert Y. Hayne, 
who have seldom received their dues from historians, are 
made to stand out on the canvas, while the parts played in 
the history of the country by Madison, Hamilton, Jackson, 
and Webster are not permitted to dwarf the equally im- 
portant parts taken by some of the above and by Henry 
Clay, the great pacificator. 

The aids to the reader are copious references to authori- 
ties, necessary explanations in foot-notes, and a marginal 
index of dates and topics. The entire work has been 
rewritten, — some chapters several times, — and all votes in 
Congress have been verified by comparison of the Annals 
or Register of Debates with the Journals. 



PREFACE TO THE PRESENT VOLUME. 



The publication of the History of the First Period of 
the Sectional Struggle has been attended with so much 
difficulty the author concludes that it would be wiser to 
issue the second or shorter part of the narrative separately, 
and to defer until another time the publication of the 
rather more interesting story of the Missouri Compromise 
and preceding events. The portion now published is prob- 
ably not without interest to students of our early politics, 
especially to students of our economic history. It includes 
a pretty full account of the tarifl' legislation and attempted 
legislation from 1789 to 1833, as well as of the memorable 
debates of 1830-33. 

As soon as possible the other volume covering this period 
will be published. The author deeply regrets that he can- 
not send out the complete work at this time. 



13 



A HISTORY 



SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 



CHAPTER I. 

TRANSITION. 



Parties are not created at will, but are tlie slow growth, 
out of wants, hopes, and failures, of very many years and 
efforts. Not to go further back in the line of parties not cre- 
causation than the close of the second war with ^^^'^ ^^ "''^^^• 
Great Britain, it is found that the possibility of future dis- 
integration and agglutination existed in the circumstances 
of the country and the state of the public mind. By no 
means is it to be said that the "Whig party arose from the 
felt want of some provision by the federal government 
for the development of the country's great resources. Its 
origin was broader than that want, however 
strongly felt and acutely expressed by the wM^party. a 
statesmen of the time, many of whom held convenient 

. "l starting-point. 

subsequently other views than those then 
enounced. But it may be convenient to start here in quest 
of the original principles of the Whig party. Let it be 
remembered that he who more than any other man was 
the father of this great organization was a State-rights 
Democrat, that many of those who acted with him were 
likewise Jeffersonians, and that not a few of the men who 
afterwards became prominent in the leadership of the re- 

15 



16 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

organized Democratic party had been nurtured in the old 
Clay an original Federal party. The new was hardly the lineal 
Democrat. Fed- guccessor of the Federal party. The war had 

eralists in the , , i j_i t -l j. j_i 

new Democratic come apparently to mark the line between the 
party. q\^ ^^^ ^]^g j^^^y dispensations. Back of that 

line was the Revolution, — its causes, conduct, aims; its 
principles, issues, leaders. Here was heroic action, partial 
syathesis. The freedom of the people, their confederation, 
their inward unity in one sense and their outward unity in 
another, — these were to be achieved and maintained. On 
New aims and this sidc was achievement also, but it was the 
incentives. achievement chiefly of material rather than 
political prosperity, of advancement in arts, commerce, 
agriculture, manufactures, and, above all, in the moral, 
spiritual, and intellectual parts of the national life. The 
line, then perhaps hardly discernible, is now plainly traced. 
The close of the contest with the mother country had given 
to foreign commerce and all branches of industry in con- 
nection with it by association or dependence an unnatural 
stimulus. A partial paralysis of trade had followed. It 
was seen then that the United States must rely upon them- 
selves for many if not most of the articles it had been the 
custom to import from England and other lands. Hence 
the tarifi' of 1816, which, with the cognate subjects of in- 
ternal improvement and the sale and settlement of the 
public lands, will be treated in further and separate chap- 
ters. Hence the recommendations of Monroe and Calhoun 
and all the discussion of the time in relation to roads, 
canals, harbors, and other objects upon which governmental 
energy was expended. 

The Missouri debates had both retarded the growth of 
How the Mis- the new politics and advanced it: retarded, 

souri debates bccause they absorbed public attention: ad- 
had affected ./ i 7 

public senti- vauccd, bccause they sowed distrust between 
ment. ^^iq sections and stimulated the latent feeling 

in the North in behalf of the general government as op- 
posed to the State governments. In that section there was 
not always, perhaps, more of the spirit of consolidation 



TRANSITION. 17 

than there was at the South, but it was more conspicuous 
at certain times, and was the outgrowth of peculiar and 
local circumstances. To oppose a federal administration 
which embarrassed their commerce the New The North and 
Englanders had gone almost as far as logical consoudation. 
consistency demanded in advocacy of State rights. On 
the other hand, it was well known that in the earlier days 
of the republic the leaders of that public opinion which 
was favorable to more or less of centralization resided in the 
North and united with the Federal party. The slavery 
issue presented in the late controversy had drawn over to 
the opposition a large number of northern Republicans, or, 
as they began to be called, Democrats. The brainiest men 
in the Congress who championed the restriction upon the 
new State were life-long Federalists, however ; for it was 
such debaters as King, Otis, and Sergeant who furnished 
the arguments combated by the friends of Missouri. These 
northern leaders appreciated the fact that it was not pos- 
sible after the compromise to frame a party on the abolition 
issue straight out or on any derivative or moderate prin- 
ciple of emancipation. But they recognized the power of 
the sentiment in the country, strong in the North and not 
contemptible in the South, which called for a ^j^^ American 
distinctively American system of industry. By industrial sys- 
fostering this sentiment they hoped to control ™' 
public affairs as well as build up a physical power in the 
North which should be invincible far into the future. Not 
quite yet was the commercial influence of the old towns 
ready to accept the good held up to its view. For a few 
years longer was this ponderous influence to be thrown 
into the scale against protection by legislation of the vari- 
ous industries which it was feared would injure the im- 
porters. The press, ever in modern times and among 
English peoples a potent factor in public opinion, was 
beginning to espouse with zeal the cause of manufactures. 
The old Aurora, shorn of some of its popularity, but still 
widely read, was devoted about this time almost exclu- 
sively to the championship of protection, and there were 

2 



4 

18 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

many other journals which labored with zeal to establish 
the principle. 

The germs of future political divisions are seen also in 

the spirited conflict between the Washington organ of the 

Federal administration and the Richmond or- 

rndSmond gau of the Statc-rights party. For several 

organs of the years alienation had existed, but now there 

administration. '' , .,. . , » ii 

was open hostility on various themes. All 
topics were handled with reference to the fundamental 
nature of the government, the origin of the Constitution, 
its construction and powers, and the status of the State 
governments in the system, the character of sovereignty, 
and the definition of the word " people" in a federal gov- 
ernment. The National Intelligencer said that the Constitu- 
tion was not formed by the States, but by the people of the 
w^hole country. The Enquirer retorted by quotations from 
the Federalist and Madison's speeches before the Virginia 
convention. The Charleston Patriot contended that the 
Congress might do everything that concerned the general 
welfare. Indeed, the clause in the Constitution on which 
this idea was based was often adduced as sufficient for all 
the purposes of a national as distinct from a federal gov- 
ernment. 

The next President is ever a topic of interest in the 
United States. At this time it was discussed even before 
Mr. Monroe's second term had begun. Hate and rancor, 

involved chiefly in a quarrel of personal prefer- 

1823-24. . . 

ences and having as yet little relation to any 
great question of policy, disturbed the public tranquillity. 
The candidates were at first Mr. Adams from the North, 
Presidential Mr. Crawford and Mr. Calhoun from the South, 
candidates. ^-^^ y^^. Clay and General Jackson from the 
West. Until the Crawford party made the fatal blunder 
of assiiming for him regularity as the Republican nominee 
by a Congressional caucus, that gentleman was clearly 
stronger than any other candidate. A native of Virginia, 
thirst State of the South ; a citizen of Georgia, aspiring 
to be the second State of that section; adhering more 



TRANSITION. ' J 9 

closely, perhaps, than either of his rivals to the original 
doctrines of the State-rights school; of massive frame 
and commanding appearance; popular in arts and address; 
a shrewd though honorable politician ; long at the head of 
the important treasury department of the executive branch 
of the government, his ascendency drew upon him the 
hostility of all the factions and chieftainships. To him 
clung much of that old party Republicanism which con- 
jured in the names of Jetferson and Madison. The older 
leaders, like Mr. Macon and John Taylor, of Caroline, were 
devoted to him. The younger men who believed in the 
old principles in their entirety also supported his candi- 
dature. The candidacy of Mr. Calhoun was dependent on 
the action of the Pennsylvania Republicans. His strongest 
friends were in that State and in South Carolina, although 
he was not without ardent following in New England. 
He was of Scotch-Irish extraction, had family and personal 
ties in the North, and had been graduated from Yale Col- 
lege. The youngest, he was also perhaps the most ad- 
vanced of the live in his views on the subject of internal 
improvements. Such had been his position, certainly ; and 
the country was yet to learn of any change in his views. 
The Western candidates were as diverse in traits and 
talents as it was possible for them to be. Clay, the more 
experienced in civil life, was a man of society, an orator 
of distinction, a diplomatist. Original defects in education 
had been partly covered by contact with men of refinement, 
by a keen adaptation of means to ends, and by such read- 
ing as he had time for in the midst of a ceaseless activity. 
His manners were elegant, and usually his language was 
correct. Jackson was the successful soldier, the border 
politician. He had not thought of the Presidency until 
long after the country had set him up as an idol.^ But he 
became enamoured of the thought when he saw that there 
was an opportunity for the military hero. Mr. Clay's 



^ Parton's Life of Jackson, vol. ii. p. 354 ; Letters of H. M. Brack- 
enridge, p. 8. 



20 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

friends had been secured in a long career in the Congress, 
where, if anywhere, the brilliant and energetic politician 
may work out a grand destiny, not solely by public meas- 
ures, but also by social converse and management. Nothing 
had been neglected by Mr. Clay which could have con- 
tributed to his fortunes. It is invidious to draw social dis- 
tinctions in a democratic country. But truth requires the 
statement that, so far as there were social lines drawn at 
this time in politics, the candidacy of General Jackson was 
the candidacy of the element which had not been dominant 
in the general government, but which was restive under 
restraint and determined to assume direction. Jackson 
himself was a fair type of this middle class. Resolute, firm 
to imperiousness, with the faults of illiteracy and the virtues 
of chivalry ; a hero, with baser elements intermixed ; flash- 
ing out in sudden passion, but never losing self-control ; 
discretion, although obscured frequently, asserted itself, and 
the mastery of intuitive common sense was even greater 
than that of fiery courage. He, too, was a Scotch-Irishman 
in everything except the accident of birth. Mr. Adams 
was the Northern candidate. At that time no other man 
from that section could have secured any considerable sup- 
port ; for Rufus King was the only other conceivable can- 
didate, and he was out of the question by reason of his 
unpopularity in the South, due to his course in having ad- 
vocated the restriction of slavery. Mr. Adams was not a 
popular man. The coldness of his general manner, his 
apparent neglect of political arts, and, above all, the en- 
mity engendered by his exposure of the alleged plots of 
the Essex Junto in 1808, had detracted much from his 
chances of success. On the other hand, his culture, mo- 
rality, ability, and public training seemed to mark him as 
a worthy successor of the great men who had sat in the 
Presidential chair. Generally, however, his candidature 
was coldly supported, and what zeal there was displayed 
was the result of sectional pride rather than personal 
choice. 
Toward the end of 1823 the nominations were well 



] 



TRANSITION 21 

canvassed. North Carolina and Virginia declined to ex- 
press through the legislature any opinion on the propriety 
of a Congressional caucus to nominate candi- „, 

o _ The nomina- 

dates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, tions in the 
The legislatures of Tennessee and Maryland 
and the House of Representatives of South Carolina had 
denounced the plan of a caucus.^ Indeed, the Tennessee 
legislature had nominated General Jackson. Elected to 
the Senate to further this purpose to make him President, 
he was on the spot where all his great rivals were in high 
positions, looking closely after their personal interests. 
Mr. Calhoun, seeing that Jackson had more friends in 
Pennsylvania than himself, withdrew from the race and 
was soon afterward supported for the Vice-Presidency. 
Eastern preference for Mr. Adams was shown by the action 
of the Maine and Massachusetts legislatures, which were 
soon followed by those of other New England States and 
by public meetings and the voice of the press. The legis- 
lature of Alabama approved by resolution the nomination 
of General Jackson, but the resolution was vetoed by 
the governor. The opposition to Congressional caucuses 
had been steadily growing since 1816, but it was now much 
stronger from the fact that it was known that Mr. Crawford 
had more friends in the Congress than any other candidate. 
If a caucus were held, Crawford must inevitably be the 
nominee. Hence, the three other candidates were unan- 
imous in their rejection of a caucus nomination. At that 
time a general convention was deemed impracticable on 
account of the inconvenience of attendance. There were 
few steamboats and no railroads. Many portions of the 
country were as remote from the political centres as if they 
were on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The objec- 
tions to the Congressional caucus, which, in some form had 
been the mode of nominating Presidential tickets since 
1800, were valid, although not insuperable. So long as 
there was a real division of the country into parties, and. 

* National Intelligencer, January 2, 3, 1824. 



22 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

only the very greatest men aspired to the first office, the 
caucus would work as well at least as any mode likely 
to be substituted for it. The members were as little dis- 
posed to betray the trust reposed in them as the members 
of the State legislatures, and were far more competent, 
from their wider range of observation, to select men of 
national fame and fitness for the position. But the cau- 
cus had its faults of favoritism and inequality, and was 
doomed. 

On the 14th of February, after an ineffectual attempt by 
a few of Crawford's partisans to postpone the caucus, a 
The Crawford Conference of his friends in Congress was held 
conference. at tlic Capitol. Sixtv-six pcrsons were present, 

Last of the Con- , ^ , -, -, x 

gressionai cau- and two othcrs wcrc represented by proxy. It 
cuses. .^Q^g (decided to ballot for a Presidential and a 

Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican party, a prop- 
osition to adjourn having been rejected. The result of the 
voting was that Crawford received sixty-four votes ; John 
Quincy Adams, two ; Jackson, one ; Macon, one. William 
Harris Crawford was declared the nominee. For Vice- 
President Albert Gallatin, having received fifty-seven votes, 
was announced as the nominee. Messrs. Adams and Eustis 
of Massachusetts, Samuel Smith of Maryland, William 
King of Maine, Richard Rush, John Tod, and Walter 
Lowrie of Pennsylvania, received each one vote, and 
Erastus Root of N'ew York, two votes. Among the at- 
tendants on the caucus were the two Barbours, Archer, W. 
C. Rives, Alexander Smyth, Floyd and George Tucker of 
Virginia, Holmes of Maine, Van Buren and Cambreleng 
of New York, Lowrie of Pennsylvania, William Smith of 
South Carolina, Spaight and Edwards of North Carolina, 
and Elliot, Forsyth, and Cobb of Georgia. The caucus 
issued an address to the people. 

The nomination defined more closely the issues before 
the public. It was now the purpose of each of the other 
candidates to show that the caucus was a usurpation. They 
argued that a nomination made by only sixty-six out of 
a total membership of two hundred and sixty-one was so 



TRANSITION. 23 

clearly a minority nomination as not to be considered seri- 
ously. They not only denied the regularity of such a pro- 
ceeding, but asserted that Crawford was not as The caucus de- 
strona: before the people as he appeared to be jounced as a 

~ '■ ^ , '• usurpation by 

before the Congress. The sprmg and summer the other can- 
were filled with the small incidents of a bitter, ^i^^^'tes- 
unscrupulous, and purely personal campaign.^ Rumors of 
combinations were denied, but undoubtedly some of the 
reported propositions were made and rejected. There 
seemed to be more good feeling between the partisans of 
Adams and those of Jackson than between the friends of 
any two of the others 'after the withdrawal of Mr. Calhoun. 
A Tammany meeting in New York nominated Jackson 
and Calhoun for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency re- 
spectively, on the 8th of April, and the Jackson meetings 
generally followed the example. The health of Mr. Craw- 
ford, long precarious, became so much worse crawford-s pre- 
during the summer that he was frequently carious health, 
absent from his office and from the city of Washington. 
He was a paralytic and was reduced nearly to the condition 
of blindness and imbecility. It is possible that his actual 
condition was not always so bad as his opponents repre- 
sented, but it is very clear that it gave great concern to his 
friends and distrust to the general public, who did not 
desire to install a physical wreck as President of the United 
States. From a commanding position as leading candidate 
he steadily sunk to the third place. But the Crawford 
organs, led by the National Intelligencer, declared that he 
suffered only from " slight debility," and that he would be 
chosen over all the others by the electoral college. There 
was another complication for the Crawford party. Mr. 
Gallatin from the first had to contend with the popular 
objection that he had not been nine years in withdrawal of 
the country as a citizen before the adoption of Gaiiatm. 
the Federal Constitution. His services in the Revolution 
and subsequently were not thought to overbalance this 



* Niles's Register, INIay 29 ; National Intelligencer, March 27. 



24 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

defect. On the 21st of October the National Intelligencer 
" was authorized to say" that the name of Mr. Gallatin as 
a candidate for the Vice-Presidency was withdrawn.' 

The violence of the excitement was somewhat abated as 
the day of election approached. It was an uncertain con- 
flict, and passion had become fatigued. This 
couflict. Ap- campaign and that which followed in 1828 
proach of the jjave alwavs been res-arded as standing; alone 

election. i/ o <d 

in their personalism, virulence, and display of 
all the baser passions of human nature. In some respects 
they differed. The campaign of 1824 was more strictly 
personal, and turned less on political principle than that of 
1828. Possibly no more malignant contest ever occurred 
than the latter, but there was something more in it than 
the strife of individuals. In 1824 the old parties were only 
known by their names and Federalism was little more than 

a reminiscence. On the other hand, in 1828 
of the cam- there was a distinct line of demarcation, al- 
paigns of 1824 thouo'h the political were also personal bound- 

andl8i». . 

aries. It was Adams and Jackson, but Adams 
representing one construction of the Constitution, one policy 
of administration, and Jackson, through his friends at least 
and chief supporters, representing what was diametrically 
opposed. The policy of the latter was indeed vaguely 
hinted at in the name given to the general's party in the 
resolutions adopted at the Philadelphia meeting of No- 
vember 5, 1823.^ They called themselves "Democrats." 
But this name had sometimes been used before that as 
synonymous with Republican. 

The election of Mr. Adams by the House of Representa- 
tives had a greater influence on the politics of 
the country than almost any other event that 
had happened since the foundation of the government. It 
was certainly more radical in its eft'ects than any federal 
election that had occurred since the election of Jefferson 

* The letter of withdrawal was written on the 2d. 

* Niks' s Register, November 15, 1823. 



TRANSITION. 25 

in the same manner in 1801. General Jackson had a 
plurality in the electoral college and also of the popular 
vote, but there were various circumstances be- Mr. Adams cho- 
sides the ambition of Presidential candidates ^^n President 
and the allegation that Jackson was not a suit- of Representa- 
able man for the position which were availed **'^^^- 
of to compass his defeat. The Northern Republicans were 
generally, outside of New York and Pennsylvania, deter- 
mined upon a Northern policy and a Northern man to 
execute it. Born in North Carolina,^ a citizen of Ten- 
nessee, — both slave-holding States, — himself a slave-holder, 
and identified at most points with Southern interests and 
imbued with Southern principles, General Jackson was re- 
garded by the New England leaders as just the man, not- 
withstanding his pacific letter to President Monroe and his 
votes in favor of the tariflf and internal improvements, to 
further measures to which they were opposed. Again, Mr. 
Clay's friends saw that, were Jackson chosen, Mr. Clay's 
prospects would be postponed for a long while, perhaps 
indefinitely; for both men were from the same section, 
whereas Mr. Adams at the most could stand in the way 
but two terms, and as he was from the North tlie candidate 
would probably be selected the next time from the West. 
It is not necessary to assume that a bargain was made 
between Adams and Clay, or between their unnecessary to 
respective friends, and assented to knowingly ^^cept as trae 

. • • 1 rrn T • 1 the charge that 

or ignorantly by the prmcipals. 1 he political a bargain was 
and personal reasons for preferring Mr. Adams ^g'^^friencrs^of 
to General Jackson were suflScient to Mr. Clay, ciay and those 
The character of the two men forbade the *^^^'^^^- 
presumption of an immoral transfer of influence. Neither 
before nor since did anything occur consistent with sucli 
supposed conduct. It is therefore safe to maintain that on 
this occasion neither acted from corrupt motives, but that 
both were actuated, as honorable men should have been, 



* Parton's Jackson, i. 52 et seq., established this, but General Jack-, 
son said he was a native of South Carolina. 



26 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

by a true desire for the country's welfare. But the coalition 
was none the less morally reprehensible, none the less un- 
fortunate in its immediate results on the fortunes of the 
parties engaged in it. The will of the people was set aside. 
The legislature of Kentucky itself had avowed a preference 
for General Jackson. It was well known that Jackson, as 
between the two men, was the popular choice.^ When, 
therefore, by a vote of thirteen States for Mr. Adams to 
seven States for General Jackson and four for Mr. Craw- 
ford, the candidate of the minority was elected, opposition 
to the new administration began, even before the news of 
the election had reached all the settled parts of the country. 
The election took place on the 9th of February, 1825. On 
the 10th Mr. Adams decided to appoint Mr. Clay Secretary 
of State, and continue Mr. Crawford as Secretary of the 
Treasury.^ The nomination of Mr. Clay, opposed for a 
while in the Senate, was finally confirmed.^ Mr. John W. 
Taylor, who had been Speaker of the Sixteenth Congress 
after Mr. Clay's resignation, and who was a personal friend 
of the President, was chosen Speaker of the House in 
December. The President's inaugural address had been 
an able and candid deliverance of his views, in which he 
had invoked harmony, urged the importance of internal 
improvements, and spoken modestly of himself Certain 
passages of this address and of his first message were after- 
wards criticised freely both for their rhetoric and their 
political doctrine, which were assumed the one to be faulty 
and the other heretical. 

Mr. Adams started with a majority in the Congress in 
his favor. Mr. Clay thought that the opposition to the 
new administration would not be formidable.* But the 



* Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York 
(Albany, 1842), vol. ii. p. 188. 

■■^ Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. vi. p. 505. Crawford declined 
the honor. 

' Of the Senators who voted against the confirmation of Mr. Clay, four 
were Northern and ten Southern, including Tennessee and Mississippi. 

* Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. vi. p. 524. 



TRANSITION. 27 

President knew that lie was unpopular personally, and that 
the manner of his election had excited public feeling against 
him in portions of the Union, while there was nothing in 
the combination with Clay to afford a solid ground for the 
hope that this prejudice would abate.^ The friends of 
Crawford and some of Mr. Clay's own friends union of differ- 
who did not like the aspect of a bargain which ent elements 

1 T i> ^ n jii* /"xi against Adams. 

was charged very freely from the time of the 
election, uniting with the old Calhoun men and the parti- 
sans of General Jackson, opposed the measures in Congress 
which were brought forward by the administration party. 
The Panama mission was perhaps the first measure on 
which there was a general effort at concerted opposition. 
This was a proposition looking to at least moral support 
of the Spanish- American republics against the aggressions 
of foreign powers. The opposition was not based on un- 
friendliness, but on the peculiar nature of the United States 
government and the undesirability of interfering in the 
concerns of other powers. The commission was authorized, 
however, but nothing ever came of it. On the 8th of April, 
1826, occurred a duel between Henry Clay and ^ , 

f^ n • ^ A duel. 

John Randolph, growing out of reflections by 
the latter in debate upon the character of the former, the 
subject matter intimately connected with the recent election. 
In the fall of 1826 and winter of 1826-27 Mr. Calhoun's 
administration of the office of Secretary of "War and even 
his private reputation as a man of honor and probity were 
assailed in the newspapers. A contract with The Mix con- 
an individual named Mix, in which the chief *^^°*^- 
clerk of the War Department was involved, was relied 
upon to smirch the character of the clerk's superior and 
destroy his influence as a public man. Mr. Calhoun was 
now Vice-President, and the alleged offence was in strict- 
ness not cognizable by the Congress; but he demanded an 



» In his diary for the 31st of December, 1825, Mr. Adams states that 
his "elevation" had not been " in a manner satisfactory to pride or to 
just desire . . . with perhaps two-thirds of the whole people adverse to 
the actual result."— Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. vii. p. 98. 



28 ^ HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

investigation. Mr. Barbour, his successor in the War 
Office, pronounced the accusation a base calumny, and the 
committee of the House asked for by Mr. Calhoun exoner- 
ated him completely.* 

Steps had been taken early after Adams's election ^ to 

make General Jackson the candidate against Mr. Adams 

or whomever should be the administration man in 1828. 

But the campaign was not very exciting — this 

An early cam- r o ./ o 

paign. Jack- campaign of four years, the residuary legatee 
son's letters. ^^ ^ prcvious four years' campaign — until 
1827, when a series of letters were written by General 
Jackson and many dinners were given in honor of both 
Presidential candidates. The resolutions of the Virginia 
legislature and of the Virginia and South Carolina anti- 
tariff meetings, passed during the spring and summer of 
1827, were offset by protective meetings held chiefly at the 
North. The general convention of the protectionists met 
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 30th of July, in this 
year. These events are properly connected with chapters 
of this work which follow. So far as the principals in the 
contest for supremacy were concerned, Mr Adams for him- 
self did little to provoke animadversion. General Jack- 
son, on the contrary, took up his own cause in his own 
effective though undignified way. His constant allusions 
to " the bargain" drew out Mr. Clay, who denied the 
accusation with great indignation and called for proofs. 
These General Jackson attempted to produce. But his 
witnesses differed so much in details that their testimony 
was practically valueless.^ Nevertheless, an unpleasant 
impression yet remained on the public mind, and positive 
verbal or ocular proof was not demanded. 

Meantime the new Congress, which had been elected in 

^ Register of Debates, 1827, p. 1128 ; Niks' s Register for February and 
March, 1827. 

^ Adams charged that the next day Calhoun began to plot against him 
and to combine the opposition. — Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. 
vi. p. 506. 

' Niles's Register, November 10. 



TRANSITION. 29 

opposition to the administration, had chosen a Speaker 
from what was called the Virginia school of politicians. 
Andrew Stevenson was preferred to John W. 

■"■ The new Speak- 

Taylor. er of the Vir- 

Various names were suggested among the ^^^^^^°°i- 
Adams men for the position of Vice-President. Clay was 
disposed at one time to consider a proposition of the sort.^ 
He himself spoke to the President of the Secretary of War, 
James Barbour, of Virginia, and Mr. Adams declared to 
the latter his approbation of the suggestion.^ The name 
of Crawford awakened in Mr. Adams recollections of an 
unpleasant nature. They were old and bitter enemies. 
One branch of the Georgia legislature nominated Mr. 
Crawford in December. Although from the start there 
were indications that Calhoun would be the choice of the 
Jackson party for Vice-President, it was not until the close 
of 1827 or beginning of 1828 that there was a general 
agreement to that effect. 

One of Jackson's most influential supporters was Martin 
Van Buren, of New York, then a Senator of the United 
States. He had been in favor of Crawford in 

rrn o -1 • Van Buren. 

1824. Ihe btate-rights reactionary movement, 
begun in Virginia by John Randolph and Governor Giles, 
and of which the Richmond Enquirer was the ablest news- 
paper exponent, had extended to other States and as far 
north as l!^ew York. In accepting re-election to the 
Senate, Mr. Van Buren spoke of " remaining rights" of 
the States and the purpose " to restore those of which they 
had been divested by construction." The effort was made 
to stem the tide which had set in in favor of internal im- 
provements and protective legislation, and which had been 

^ " There is a decided majority of both houses of Congress," writes 
Mr. Adams in his diary on the 3d of December, "in opposition to the 
administration — a state of things which has never before occurred under 
the government of the United States." — Memoirs of John Quincy 
Adams, vol. vii. p. 367. 

' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. vii. p. 216. 

"Ibid., p. 352. 



30 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

steadily rising since tlie close of the second war with Great 
Britain. Both the administration and the opposition pro- 
fessed to be democratic.^ There was no fally organized 
Federal party, except perhaps in Delaware, where it had 
been defeated recently. The Jackson party, however, as- 
ciaim of the sumcd at the South to be the old Republican 
Jackson party, party, in favor of strict construction, opposed 
to lavish expenditures, and especially to the tarifi", which 
was very unpopular in that section. Still, Mr. Adams had 
supporters even in Virginia. So late as October, 1827, 
there is reason to think that a majority of the Virginia 
newspapers was favorable to the administration.^ The Vir- 
ginians, indeed, did not admire General Jackson as a civil- 
ian. The Richmond inquirer said it regarded him as " a 
choice between inevitable evils." ^ On the other hand, Mr. 
Adams was not joyfully supported by his party.* 

Party spirit was simply venomous on both sides. The 
Jackson men cried " Bargain," while the Adams men re- 
Party spirit tortcd With coarse allusions to .circumstances 
venomous. jj-^ ^j^g marriage of General Jackson.® At the 
Capitol, after delivery of a message to one of the houses 
of Congress, Mr. John Adams, son and private secretary of 
the President, was assaulted by a journalist named Jarvis, 
who alleged in extenuation that young Adams had insulted 
Jarvis's parents in his own hearing at the "White House 
and had refused reparation or even correspondence on the 
subject. The aifair was investigated, as it created excite- 
ment and was thought to trench on the privileges of the 
Congress. But, besides a condemnatory report, nothing 
was ever done. The anti-Masonic excitement in the State 
of New York, caused by the mysterious disappearance of 



^ National Intelligencer, January 9, 1828. 

^ Niles^s Register (October 6) says that there were at that time eighteen 
Adams and eleven Jackson papers in Virginia. 

=» February 16, 1828. 

* Walsh, in National Gazette. — National Intelligencer, December 15, 1828. 

^ Judge Overton's statement (Parton, vol. i. pp. 148-153) exonerates 
Jackson. 



TRANSITION. 31 

Morgan, who had threatened to print some exposures of 
Freemasonry, was a factor in the election. The Adams 
party denied that it was concerned in producing or keep- 
ing up the popular feeling in the matter.^ Private letters 
and conversations were violated frequently during this re- 
markable campaign,^ 

Slavery did not enter into this election to any consider- 
able extent. But some of the Adams papers denounced 
Jackson for owning slaves. The Compromise 
of 1820 had set aside this question for the question^s^ 
time, and the tariiF was then and during the *®^^® tempo- 
whole of the Jackson period the principal 
issue between the sections. 

The spring of 1827 had found the administration still 
confident of success. Mr, Adams, with his more cautious 
temper, was less sanguine, perhaps, than Mr. Clay, the 
head of the cabinet, or Mr. Webster, leader in the Con- 
gress. There was, apparently, good reason for this hope- 
ful spirit; for, on the surface at least, aflairs were pros- 
perous. Mr. Van Buren's party organs and workers were 
restrained from pronouncing for General Jackson in New 
York until after this period in the struggle.^ The Clinton 
party, which was not then in the ascendency, had been for 
him all the while.* In both State and Federal elections 
the candidates were discriminated as Adams or as Jackson 
men, though sometimes under protest against the slavish- 
ness of the classification. 

The election of 1828 was decisive. General Jackson 
received 178 votes in the electoral colleo;e, and 

18*28 

Mr. Adams 83 ; Calhoun, for Vice-President, 

171 ; Rush, 83 ; and Smith, of South Carolina, 7. In this 



* The Anti-Masonic party in New York supported Adams, who was 
not a Freemason, in preference to Jackson, who was a member of the 
order. — Hammond, vol. ii. p. 283. 

" Richmond Enquirer, April 4, 1828. 

^ That is, about the time of the Tammany meeting, September 26. — 
Hammond, vol. ii. p. 259. 

* Ibid., 256. 



32 A HISTORY OF THE -SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

campaign General Jackson had depended upon New York 
in the North, as he had done in 1824 upon Pennsylvania. 
Jackson's The votc for Jackson and that for Adams were 

election. ^^^q distributed as to States and sections: 

Maine, Jackson 1, Adams 8; New Hampshire, Adams 8; 
Massachusetts, Adams 15; Rhode Island, Adams 4; Con- 
necticut, Adams 8 ; Vermont, Adams 7 ; New York, Jack- 
son 20, Adams 16 ; New Jersey, Adams 8 ; Pennsylvania, 
Jackson 28 ; Delaware, Adams 3 ; Ohio, Jackson 16 ; Indi- 
ana, Jackson 5 ; Illinois, Jackson 3. These were all Northern 
States. In the South, Maryland gave Jackson 5 and Adams 
6 ; Virginia, Jackson 24 ; and all of the other States were 
for Jackson, as follows : North Carolina, 15 ; South Caro- 
lina, 11 ; Georgia, 9; Kentucky, 14; Tennessee, 11 ; Louisi- 
ana, 5 ; Mississippi, 3 ; Alabama, 5 ; and Missouri, 3.^ 

Mr. Adams's inauguration had been grave and decorous. 
A new era requires new men and new modes. Mr. Adams, 
the last of the post-revolutionary statesmen who were to 
A new era and fill the chair of President, was a man of aristo- 
newmen. cratic instincts, personally simple to the point 

of austerity in tastes and manners. But General Jackson 
was a man of the people. Tall, erect, and " gifted with 
what we call a presence," ^ imperious, as if born to com- 
mand, he yet felt himself to be one of the vast multitude 
of American sovereigns. Such a man naturally called 
around him on his promotion to the Presidency a horde 
of all classes of admirers as well as many mere curiosity- 
seekers. Alluding to the reception which followed the 
ceremonies, Judge Story says, that " the reign of King 
Mob seemed triumphant."^ 

^ Register of Debates of the Twentieth Congress, p. 350. 
* Parton's Life of Jackson, vol. i. p. 111. 
» Ibid., vol. iii. p. 169. 



CHAPTER 11. 

THE TARIFF— 1789-1820. 

The enlightened theories of political economy which 
were the fruit of the tree of political liberty, first plucked 
in England and then speedily transshipped across the 
Channel and assimilated with the radical philosophy of 
France, were always difficult to adapt to the 
every-day wants of nations. As conceived by ^^eorier^ d^^ 
Adam Smith and expanded by his successors, cuity of adap- 
the doctrine of free trade seems to the rational 
mind one which the sagacity of statesmen and the common 
sense of the people alike would eagerly embrace and steadily 
put into practice. That it has not been so, all admit. At 
least some of the reasons why will appear in the course 
of the following pages. 

The subject of revenue had been the most vexatious in 
the history of the United Colonies and of thd United States 
under the Articles of Confederation. Above ^ v,- * r 

The subject of 

everything else, the difficulty of raising it had revenue under 
brought about the movement for a more per- crafederat7on° 
feet government. The Constitution had left and 'inder the 
the matter, not as proposed by the extreme 
State-rights party, in the hands of the States as before, 
with the dangerous power of State coercion as the only 
means for its collection in the last resort, but with the 
Congress to legislate and the executive to carry out the 
legislation, the Supreme Court having been intended to 
decide upon all points of construction of the laws framed.^ 

1 Certainly as to all which did not involve questions of sovereignty in 
their last analysis. 

S 33 



34 A HISTORY OF THE* SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

It was competent then for the Congress to pass such acts 
as should consist with the Constitution ; and that body was 
The power of expected to enact none but such laws as were 
the Congress suited to the existing needs of the country, 
cation of the with a prospcctlve glance, but with prejudice 
Constitution. ^^ ^q sectiou, class, or interest whatever. As 
questions of money and the regulation of trade lie at 
the base of all public administration, it was the revenue 
for the support of the government which was the first 
matter debated in committee of the whole in the first 
House of Representatives. It was on the 8th 

1789 

Revenue the of April, 1789, and Mr. Page, of Virginia, 
first question presided. Mr. Madison introduced the subject 

debated, April ^ i • i c 

8. Mr. Madison m somc general remarks, in the course of 
*'?^.>,'T^"''^' which he alluded to the impotency of the late 

of the topic. _ ^ "^ 

Congress and the establishment of a more ef- 
fectual government. Both on account of the man and the 
occasion this first speech in the Congress on a great public 
question is worthy of our consideration. Madison was the 
leader in that chamber of the party which had been suc- 
cessful. He was in the early maturity of a life which was 
to be longer than the average and devoted almost through- 
out to the public service of his country. He was a speaker 
of assured powers, his knowledge of men and principles 
was profound, his reading was over a wide field, and his 
command of public questions was certainly not inferior to 
that of any man of his times, either at home or abroad. 
He had acquired experience in the legislature of Virginia, 
in the Congress of the Confederation, in the convention 
that framed the Federal Constitution, and in the State con- 
vention which ratified the great instrument. His wisdom 
as a counsellor, his practice as a draftsman of laws and 
constitutions, his readiness and tact as a debater, were every- 
where recognized. It was well that he should point the way. 
Mr. Madison said that the Congress ought, in its first act, 
to revive those principles of honor and honesty that had 
too long lain dormant. To remedy the evil of a deficiency 
in the treasury " a national revenue must be obtained, but 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 35 

the system must be such a one that, while it secures the 
object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constitu- 
ents." He apprehended that both these objects . ,. , 

^ f ^ ''A national rev- 

might be obtained from an impost. " In pur- enue without 

suing this measure," he continued, " I know *^pp'"^^*^°'^- 
that two points occur for our consideration. The first re- 
spects the general regulation of commerce, which in my 
opinion ought to be as free as the policy of commerce 
nations will admit. The second relates to rev- should be free 

1 1 J.1 • • J.1 • J. T as the policy of 

enue alone ; and this is the point i mean more nations win ad- 
particularly to bring into the view of the com- ^^^- The sys- 

• ,, 1 T^-r 1 • nt- ■ • 1 /. tern of 1783. 

mittee.^ JNot having sulncient material lor 
elucidating fully these points and the situation admitting 
of no delay, he proposed in a schedule such articles of 
regulation as were likely to occasion the least ditficulty. 
The propositions of 1783 having been generally approved 
by the several States in some form or other, he made them 
the basis of what he called a "temporary system." He 
thought that some deviation from the scale of duties then 
affixed was required by the changes in public circumstances, 
but he recommended a general adherence to the plan.^ 
Boudinot, of New Jersey, concurred in the proposition, 
and White, Madison, and Parker favored the motion of 
the first-named that the blanks should be filled at a later 
day.^ 

On the next day discussion in its proper sense began. The 
plan suggested was for ad valorem duties on some articles, 
but Lawrence, of New York, advocated such duties on all.* 
Fitzsimons, of Pennsylvania, said that he had extended his 
views further than the gentlemen who had spoken and a 
temporary system. He ofiTered a resolution to embrace his 
views in favor of enumerated articles, and which included 
a large and varied list of articles of drink, food, clothing, 
house-building, vehicles, etc. Among these, he observed, 
were some calculated to encourage the productions of our 



* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 102. 

* Ibid., p. 103. =• Ibid., p. 104. * Ibid., p. 105. 



36 A HISTORY OF THB SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

country and protect our infant manufactures, besides others 
tending to operate as sumptuary restrictions upon articles 
Fitzsimons's that are often termed those of luxury.^ Here 
enumerated ar- -^y^g ^ YiuQ of division drawn by a Pennsyl- 

tides. Germ of */ «/ 

the protective vania hand. Madison had proposed revenue as 
policy. the object; Fitzsimons now suggested protec- 

tion. Madison had favored a temporary system comprising 
a few enumerated articles; Fitzsimons now advocated a 
permanent system and a great list of articles of necessity 
as well as of luxury. The conflict that has not yet ceased, 
that probably never will cease, then began, — the conflict 
of special versus general interests, of ideas with illusions. 
White, of Virginia, opposed making too minute an inquiry, 
and thought that the House should take in only the most 
material and productive articles, leaving the others for 
another occasion.^ Tucker, of South Carolina, remarked 
the absence of all members south of Virginia except him- 
self, iind on that account desired delay. But he said he 
was willing to go as far as a temporary ad valorem impost 
and a duty on the enumerated articles of the Congress of 
1783.^ Tonnage duty was a subject requiring, in his judg- 
ment, deliberation and full representation. On the other 
hand, Hartley, like Fitzsimons, wished to go into the business 
on as broad a bottom of protection for domestic manufactures 
as was practicable.* Madison thought from what had been 
said that there was a disposition to go further than was 
necessary. It was his view to restrain the first essay on 
the subject to the object of revenue and make that a tem- 
porary expedient. He wished for further information on 
the state of our manufactures.' Agreeing with Tucker, 
that the sentiments of gentlemen from different sections 
should be regarded, he argued that we should limit our 
considerations on this head by the general interests of the 
Union. Mr. Madison continued : " Gentlemen will be 
pleased to recollect that those parts of the Union which 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 106. 
2 Ibid., p. 107. ' Ibid.^ p. 108. 

*Ibid., p. lOa -5 Ibid, p. 110. 



THE TARIFF — 17S9-1S20. 37 

contribute more under the system than the others are also 
those parts more thinly planted and consequently stand 
most in need of national protection ; therefore they will 
have less reason to complain of unequal burdens. There 
is another consideration : the States that are most advanced 
in population and ripe for manufactures ought to have their 
particular interests attended to in some degree. While 
these States retained the power of making regulations of 
trade they had the power to protect and cherish such insti- 
tutions ; by adopting the present Constitution they have 
thrown the exercise of their power into other hands. They 
must have done this with an expectation that these interests 
would not be neglected here." ^ His general principle, as 
expressed in his own language, was, " that commerce ought 
to be free, and labor and industry left at large to find its 
proper object." But, he continued, there were " exceptions 
important in themselves. If America was to leave her 
ports perfectly free and make no discrimina- Madison-s prin- 
tion, it is obvious that such policy would go to cipie of dis- 

1-,. . ,.. iij_i !> crimination. 

exclude American shipping altogether trom 
foreign ports and she would be materially affected in one 
of her most important interests. To this we may add 
another consideration, that by encouraging the means of 
transporting our productions with facility we encourage 
the raising them ; and this object, I apprehend, is likely to 
be kept in view by the general government."^ Again: 
" There may be some manufactures which, being once 
formed, can advance towards perfection without any ad- 
ventitious aid, while others, for want of the fostering hand 
of government, will be unable to go on at all." He did 
not think that any great national advantage arose from 
sumptuary prohibitions.* Embargoes in time of war were 
another exception. He observed that there might be some 
truth in the remark that each nation should have within 
itself the means of defence, but he was well persuaded that 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 111. 
» Ibid., p. 112. 3ii)i^ p 113_ 



38 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the reasoning on this subject had been carried too far. 
Madison did not object to Fitzsimons's propositions, lie said, 
" because so far as we can enumerate the proper objects and 
apply specific duties to them we conform to the practice 
prevailing in many of the States and adopt the most laud- 
able method of collecting revenue; at least preferable to 
laying a general tax." ^ But he thought that the protecting 
of domestic manufactures ought not to be " too confusedly 
blended" with the raising of revenue.^ Boudinot favored 
specific duties, but was willing to wait.^ The committee 
added Fitzsimons's list to that proposed by Madison. 
The enumeration was for the purpose of placing a higher 
duty than was borne by articles left in the common mass. 

In this first tariif debate it is to be noticed that the 
Northern members who spoke had advocated as full a protec- 
How the sec- tion as possiblcfor manufactures, that a Southcm 
tions were member had asked only for delay, while Mr. 
first tariff de- Madison had broached the doctrine of a tarifl:' 
^**®- for revenue with incidental protection as far as 

practicable. The position of the latter was most carefully 
defined. It was an adaptation of the principle of free 
trade to practical legislation. Protection was not to be 
" too confusedly blended" with the prime object, which was 
the raising of revenue. There was to be no protection for 
the sake of protection and no disguise of protection under 
the name of revenue. 

On the 11th of April, Smith, of Maryland, presented a 
. ., petition from the tradesmen, manufacturers, 

April 11. -^ ' 

and others of Baltimore, setting forth the de- 
cline of trading and manufacturing interests in the country, 
and asking relief from " the supreme legislature of the 
United States as the guardians of the whole empire." * 
The question of how to proceed with the subject of the 
revenue was then debated. Lee proposed to go on seriatim 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 114. 
' Ibid. » Ibid. 

* Ibid., p. 115. This first petition on the subject was referred to the 
committee of the whole. 



THE TARIFF — 17S9-1820. 39 

with the articles.^ Goodhue, of Massachusetts, got the 
committee to agree to lay a duty on anchors of one hundred 
and twelve pounds, every dozen of wool cards, wrought 
tin- ware, every box of lemons, and every barrel of limes.^ 
Boudinot suggested that until a general plan could be de- 
vised, officers should be appointed to collect the impost and 
protecting duties in the manner and under the penalties 
directed by the laws of the proper State. Where there 
were no revenue laws, he would have the laws of the ad- 
joining State adopted.^ Bland and Lee agreed with Bou- 
dinot that there was not sufficient information for the cre- 
ation of a permanent system. After further a committee 
discussion the proposition of Madison to ap- appointed, 
point a committee to prepare a bill to regulate the mode 
of collecting duties on imports and tonnage was agreed to. 
Meantime, the discussion on the articles continued.* Sher- 
man proposed fifteen cents a gallon on rum. Smith thought 
that ten cents was enough. The first debate over any 
article was over this, and if it was not as pun- ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ 
gent as the subject, the fault was not the article dis- 
speakers'. It was resumed on the 14th of '^^^ ' 
April, when it was largely connected with molasses, rum's 
principal ingredient. Lawrence, of New York, favored a 
rum duty of twelve cents, urging the danger of a loss of 
revenue.* Fitzsimons and Madison sustained Sherman and 
fifteen cents. The committee decided to put Jamaica rum 
at that rate.^ Madison then proposed a duty of eight cents 
on molasses, which was resisted by the New England, New 
York, and New Jersey representatives. Ames, Thacher, 
Goodhue, Lawrence, and Boudinot spoke for 

■•• Molasses. 

lower rates, and finally the duty was fixed at 
six cents.^ After some discussion Madeira wine, a com- 
mon article of import, was rated at thirty-three and one- 
third cents a gallon by a vote of twenty-one to nineteen. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 116. 
2 Ibid. 3 ibi(j^ p ii9_ 

* Ibid., p. 120. Mbid., p. 125. 

« Ibid., p. 128. ' Ibid., pp. 128-138. 



40 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

All other wines were placed at twenty cents.^ The com- 
mittee agreed to tax common sugar one cent per pound ; 
coft'ee, two and one-half cents on the pound. 

Wines. Sugar. • i . • , • 

Alter some consideration, action upon tea was 
deferred.^ 

On the day following, on the motion to insert beer, ale, 
and porter in the list of dutiable articles, Fitzsimons said, 
" If the morals of the people were to be improved by what 
entered into their diet, it would be prudent in the national 

legislature to encourage the manufacture of 

Malt liquors. . 

malt liquors."^ He moved a duty of nine 
cents per gallon, and was seconded by Lawrence, who 
urged the consideration that it would tend also to encour- 
age agriculture. But Smith, of Maryland, opposed what 
he called the high duties contemplated by some members, 
and Gale thought that the proposed duty would prohibit 
importations and defeat the purpose of revenue, while 
giving some brewers a monopoly.* Madison and the House 
concurred to some extent with these latter views, for on his 
motion a duty of eight cents was agreed to.^ The com- 
mittee struck out the articles beef, pork, and butter.^ Fitz- 
simons advocated and Tucker, of South Carolina, opposed 
a duty of two cents the pound on candles, the former be- 
cause Pennsylvania no longer imported the article from 
England or Ireland, and the latter for the reason that South 

Carolina did import it. Tucker said that, 
Pennsylvania SO far as the enumeration went, the impost 
and South Car- ^ould bear unequallv upon South Carolina.'^ 

olina. . ^ J r 

Boudinot and Lawrence favored the duty, the 
latter urging " that if candles were an object of consid- 
erable importation, they ought to be taxed for the sake 
of obtaining revenue, and if they were not imported in 
considerable quantity the burden upon the consumer would 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 141. 
' Ibid., p. 142. ^ Ibid., p. 144. * Ibid. 

^ Ibid., p. 145. Beer, ale, and porter in bottles, twenty-five cents per 
dozen. 
« Ibid., p. 146. ^ Ibid. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 41 

be small, while it tended to clierish a valuable manufacture." 
The motion prevailed.^ 

It would be tedious to review the full list. Cheese was 
dutied at four cents ; soap at two cents. Boots were rated 
at fifty cents a pair ; shoes at ten cents a pair, without any 
debate.^ 

The manufacture of steel was described by Pennsylvania 
speakers as in its infancy, but likely to emancipate the 
country from the control exercised by foreis^n 
manufacturers. It had, however, been attended 
by considerable success. The materials necessary to make 
the article were the product of almost every State in the 
Union. Fitzsimons thought that five shillings per hundred- 
weight would not be oppressive.^ Madison said that in- 
stead of selecting this article to be the object of encourage- 
ment for manufacture and not for revenue, it would be 
more proper, as suggested by the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Tucker, to give a bounty on the importation. 
It was so materially connected with the improvement of 
agriculture and other manufactures that he questioned its 
propriety, even on that score. He proposed to place the 
article on the ad valorem list at five per cent, duty.* Tucker 
described the state of South Carolina as one of debt, with 
prices of products falling. Rice and indigo were too low to 
be cultivated by many of the planters. He called for the 
exercise of liberality and moderation. Fitzsimons, in reply, 
said he would have gentlemen get rid of local considera- 
tions. He seemed little disposed, however. Local consider- 
himself to be guided by his precept where **^''°®- 
Pennsylvania was concerned. One of his arguments was 
that the negroes of South Carolina did not consume as 
much as the white inhabitants of the Eastern States, an 
argument we shall meet with very often as we progress. 
Lee's motion to strike out was not carried, and Boudinot's 
motion to fill the blank with fifty-six cents per one hundred 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 147. 
*Ibid. 3 Ibid. * Ibid., p. 148. 



42 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

and twelve pounds was adopted rather than Fitzsimons's 
for a duty of sixty-six.^ 

The next subject aflbrding a division on sectional lines 

was the duty on hemp, proposed by Mr. Madison on the 

15th of April and debated on that and the suc- 

An™her divis- cccding day. The contest was between the 

ion on sectional sliip-buildino: and the agricultural interests. 

lines. r ts o 

Madison had moved to levy a duty on hemp 
as well as cordage, although opposed to the former,^ and 
Moore, of Pennsylvania, had declared that the Southern 
States were well calculated for the cultivation of hemp. 
The New England view was a duty of forty cents to en- 
courage the importation of raw material and manufacture 
of cordage, the other favored seventy-five cents, and the 
committee of the whole accepted Madison's compromise 
proposition, which was fifty cents.^ Other ship-building 
materials were considered, as nails, spikes, tacks, and brads. 
Madison conceived that this tax would increase the price 
of ship-building, Bland that it would bear unequally upon 
the Southern States; but Goodhue and Ames spoke of the 
importance to which the manufacture of nails had attained.* 
From what had been said of the small expense and great 
facility for the manufacture. Tucker judged that the in- 
dustry stood in no want of protection. Ames combated 
this argument, and was among the first to proclaim in the 
halls of Congress the naked doctrine of force as necessary 
to build up American manufactures. " The commerce 
of America," he averred, " particularly the Southern 
parts, had by the force of habit and English connections 
been setting strong upon the British coasts. It required," 
he contended, "the aid of the general government to 
divert it to a more natural course. Good policy and 
sound wisdom demonstrated the propriety of an inter- 
change between the diflferent States iji the Union. To 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 147, 
149. 
' Ibid. » Ibid., pp. 152-156. - * Ibid. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 43 

procure this political good, some force was necessary." * 
Fitzsimons, who was so active on the subject of steel, de- 
clared that he was not very solicitous as to this duty. Fi- 
nally, nails and spikes were taxed one cent per pound, but 
tacks and brads were stricken out.^ 

But if New England had appealed to legislative force to 
establish a theory of revenue, which, however, as a whole 
she was not yet prepared and was not for many years to be 
prepared to adopt, other parts of the country were to excite 
alarms of a different nature. Southern members generally 
opposed a duty on salt as oppressive, and Burke, 
Tucker, and Smith were joined by Scott and 
Moore, of Pennsylvania. Scott said " the duty was bad 
policy and might go nigh to wreck the government." He 
declared he had reasons of a political nature to support his 
opinion.^ Smith, of Maryland, also, but more guardedly, 
alluded to "the shoals of discontent." Interior South 
Carolina was believed, he said, to be " opposed to the new 
government." * On a subsequent day Lawrence and Mad- 
ison advanced the argument in favor of the duty that the 
Western people, paying less tax on other articles, should 
make up the deticiency on this one. Madison said he 
would make the duty moderate, however. Huntington 
expressed similar views, but White and others referred to 
the " delicacy" of the situation and opposed any tax on 
salt.* After a speech by Fitzsimons, in which lie affirmed 
that gentlemen had not proved that the proposed measure 
was founded on injustice, but the contrary position had 
been established, the committee agreed to six cents, with 
a drawback on fish and salted provisions.* In this debate 
the alarmists were from the Western districts and from 
Southern States not affected by the duty. 

It were a tedious task to notice all the work of a legis- 
lative body in originating a measure of this kind. The 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 157. 
» Ibid., p. 158. » Ibid., p. 159. 

* Ibid., p. 160. * Ibid., p. 165. 
« Ibid., p. 167. 



44 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

members from the several States either sought aid for new- 
manufactures or resisted as oppressive that claimed by 
The spirit of othcrs. But there vras more concession than 
concession. upou any revcuue plan afterward which called 
for any considerable debate. Window-glass at ten per 
cent, ad valorem was inserted to please Carroll and the 
State of Maryland; paper, of which Clymer stated that 
Pennsylvania produced annually seventy thousand reams, 
to encourage that commonwealth was awarded a duty of 
seven and one-half per cent, ad valorem, and the same rate 
without discussion was agreed to on the following articles : 
Canes, whips, ready-made clothing, gold, silver, and plated 
Miscellaneous warc, jcwclry and paste work; also upon cab- 
articies. jj^g^ work, metal buttons, saddles, leather 

gloves, beaver, fur, wool, or mixed hats, millinery, leather, 
iron castings, slit or rolled iron. Anchors and wrought tin- 
ware were added at the rate of seven and one-half per 
cent. Certain tropical fruits and nuts were stricken out 
of the bill. Fifteen per cent, on coaches and carriages; 
fifty per cent, on wool cards ; fifty cents on every quintal 
of fish, were some of the duties.^ After opposition by 
Madison and supporting speeches by Fitzsimons, Goodhue, 
and Boudinot, Fitzsimons's motion to tax all teas imported 
from China and India in ships built in the United States 
and belonging wholly to citizens thereof according to the 
following rates passed : bohea, six cents per pound ; sou- 
chong und other black teas, ten cents; superior green, 
twenty cents ; all others, ten ; such teas imported from 
any other country or from China and India in ships not 
the property of citizens of the United States, 
Virginia and bohca, ten; souchoug, ctc, fifteen; superior 
Pennsylvania prreeu, thirty; all others, eighteen.^ Bland 

antagonized. t -r» i ' o 

and Parker, of Virginia, favored a duty of 
three cents per bushel on coal to protect the Virginia col- 
lieries, which was opposed by Hartley, of Pennsylvania, 



* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 167, 168. 
' Ibid., pp. 168-170. The bill as enacted contained several changes. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 45 

wlio thought one cent was sufficient duty, as coal was used 
largely in manufactures. The committee adopted three 
cents.^ 

On the commercial part of the system, the Massachu- 
setts members having gone to meet Vice-President Adams, 
their absence was urged as a reason why action should be 
deferred until their return. But when three full deleara- 
tions from the Southern States, except one member, had 
been detained at the beginning of the session, this fact did 
not deter those who wished to benefit manufactures from 
proceeding, although a request that no extreme action 
should be taken had been made by the single representative 
present from the States south of Virginia. 

On the 21st of April the question of discrimination in 
favor of American shipping was considered. April 21. 
The cognate question of discrimination in favor Discrimination 
of friendly and treaty nations was also raised. American ship- 
The first proposition was for a six per cent. p^°^- 
duty per ton on vessels built in the United States and owned 
by citizens of the same and all foreign-built vessels owned 
by citizens of this country. Both propositions were adopted, 
the latter after it had been ably advocated by Madison, 
Fitzsimons, and Baldwin. The policy was opposed by 
Benson, Sherman, and Lawrence.^ The tonnage was fixed 
at thirty cents on vessels belonging to friendly and fifty 
cents on those owned wholly or in part by the subjects of 
other powers.^ 

Complaint that the duties as agreed to were too high 
came from New York, New Jersey, Georgia, and South 
Carolina. Some of the criticisms referred only complaints of 
to particular articles ; others, as Boudinot's, to ^igh duties. 
the whole system.^ Lawrence endorsed the latter 's argu- 
ment that a high duty on rum and other spirits and wines 
instead of elevating morals would lower them by promoting 
smuggling; and he favored, with Tucker, Jackson, and 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 170. 
^ Ibid., pp. 176-191. 2 Ibid., p. 191. 

* Ibid., pp. 192-195. 



46 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

many others, a reduction of the duties.^ This was opposed 
by Fitzsimons and Lee." Madison admitted that high 
duties had a tendency to promote smuggling, but he 
thought that Madeira wines could bear the duty imposed. 
Boudinot's motion to reduce the rum duty to twelve cents 
was lost. The discussion on the following day took a turn 
favorable to discrimination in favor of friendly nations, the 
proposition before the House having been to give French 
brandy the preference over rum.' Madison led in favor of 
discrimination and was opposed by Lowrie. Fitzsimons 
advocated a small discrimination only. The result was 
that the duty on all spirits, Jamaica proof, imported from 
nations in alliance should be twelve cents; on all other 
spirits from the same nations, ten cents ; on Madeira wine 
the duty was reduced from thirty-three and one-third to 
twenty-five cents, and on all other wines from twenty-five 
to fifteen.* Shoes were reduced, on Ames's motion, from 
ten to seven cents. A principle of the action on this meas- 
ure of revenue is discerned in a remark of Madison's. He 
said, in reply to Fitzsimons's proposition to increase the 
duty on cables and cordage from fifty cents to one dollar, 
because the duty was fifty cents on hemp, that " it had been 
discussed in the committee and it was then determined to 
be as necessary to promote agriculture as manufactures." 
The House decided finally upon Madison's compromise at 
seventy-five cents.^ 

The great source of disagreement and a more obvious 
_ , cause of sectional alignment than the duties on 

Rum and mo o 

lasses. Section- hemp and cordage was tlie joint subject of rum 
a po icy. ^^^ molasses. At that time the making of and 

traflac in rum was the chief industry of New England. The 
thrifty mind in that quarter of the world was still directed 
at intervals, as in the days of the first settlers, to the moral 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 19-^ 
195, 197. Tucker advocated a reduction on rum to eight cents. 

" Ibid., pp. 196, 198. ' Ibid., p. 200 et seq. * Ibid., p. 207. 

' Ibid. The subject was out of committee of the whole and befor.-; 
the House. 



THE TARIFF — 17S9-1820. 47 

and spiritual welfare, or, rather, lack of the same, in the 
surrounding communities ; hut its daily bent of godliness 
was toward provision for the elect in those temporal affairs 
so essential if existence was to be prolonged. Molasses 
was an article of food or drink in two ways : it was eaten or 
drunk with coffee or tea, and it was distilled into spirits and 
used or exported. In the progress of the House the duty 
had not yet been decided upon, because the Massachusetts 
members, who were principally interested, had obtained a 
postponement in order to enable them to procure informa- 
tion. Mr. Goodhue now said that they had been unsuccess- 
ful. He and his colleague, Gerry, supported a low duty, 
in the interest, as they maintained, of the poorer class of 
consumers. But Jackson, of Georgia, argued that it would 
especially enure in favor of New England rum.^ The 
debate, continued on the following day, became very ani- 
mated. The New England argument was re-stated by 
Wadsworth. It was in brief that fisheries depended on the 
molasses imported, as fish were exchangeable in the French 
"West Indies only for rum and molasses.^ The proposed 
duty was six cents. The New England members sought 
by various arguments to have it reduced. Thacher said, 
" "What would be the opinion of gentlemen from Virginia 
if a member was to propose a duty on rye, apples, and 
peaches equal to six cents, and urge as a reason that it was 
necessary in order to keep up the ratio between whiskey 
and Jamaica spirits ?" Again : " Suppose a member from 
Massachusetts was to propose an impost on negroes, what 
would you hear from Southern gentlemen if fifty dollars 
was the sum to be laid ?" He declared that this was not 
more than the proportion proposed to be laid ^ question of 
on molasses. As to the pernicious effects of relative morai- 
New England rum, he held that there was no ^^' 
comparison with negro slavery : that is to say, the rum was 
so much less injurious, morally and industrially, than the 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 209-213. 

* Ibid., p. 214. 



48 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

other — if the reader may infer this, the obvious bearing 
of his language.^ Ames boldly put his argument on the 
ground of protecting a New England manufacture, and 
placed this manufacture on an equality with all others. 
" "We are not to consider ourselves while here," he as- 
serted, " as at church or school to listen to the harangues 
of speculative piety." ^ Mr. Ames indulged also in a little 
threatening : " The language of complaint will circulate 
universally and change the favorable opinion now enter- 
tained to dislike and clamor."^ This was an offset to the 
Western Pennsylvania and Southern alarms, uttered when 
the salt duty was under consideration. 

Madison appears to have replied to both Thacher and 
Ames. To the former, waiving consideration of the lan- 
guage Thacher had just used, Madison declared that the 
duty on molasses would no more burden the East than that 
on sugar would the South.* In answer to the last remark 
of Ames, he asked if the Northern people " were made of 
finer clay . . . were they the chosen few?" He trusted 
that the general government would " equally affect all." * 
Fitzsimons ridiculed the contention of the New England 
members that the tax would ruin their commerce. "It is 
a tax," he said, " of not quite three-quarters of a dollar 
per man."^ The New England argument was met by 
Jackson by one of the same kind. " What," he inquired, 
" is to become of the lumber of Georgia? We are obliged 
to take rum in the West Indies in exchange for our lumber, 
upon which rum fifteen cents a gallon duty is imposed. 
The gentlemen are not for reducing this." ^ 

The House refused to strike out six cents, but agreed to 
Fitzsimons's motion, which had been rejected in the com- 
mittee of the whole, to provide three cents per 
gallon drawback on exported rum distilled in 
the United States. On the 8th of May the House was 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 215. 
"Ibid., p. 222. 3 i|3i(j_^ p. 225. 

* Ibid., p. 218. 6n3i(j_^ p. 227. 
« Ibid., p. 228. '' Ibid., p. 230. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 49 

again in committee, a bill having been reported.^ Tucker 
proj)osed to the members from Massachusetts a general re- 
duction if they deemed that the molasses duty ^. g 
as agreed upon bore too heavily upon their Tucker's i^ropo- 
State, and he thought that five per cent, ad era^ reduction 
valorem would raise sufficient revenue and af- to five per cent. 
ford sufficient protection to manufactures.^ To make a 
test he moved to reduce the duty on distilled spirits six 
cents per gallon, and was seconded by Jackson. Ames 
also advocated reduction and instanced the impossibility 
of preventing illicit trade where high taxes were imposed, 
even in countries having more experience and a " more 
nervous executive." He asked how they expected to raise 
forty per cent, in the first instance.* Madison deprecated 
ably and temperately the proposed reduction, contending 
that the rates agreed on in committee were reasonable and 
necessary if it was desired to avoid laying excises and 
direct taxes, which no gentleman proposed.* The debate 
showed that Georgia and South Carolina were joined by 
Massachusetts and a part of Virginia in wishing to retain 
the old system of a few enumerated articles and a general 
duty of five per cent.^ Bland's expectation of raising 
thirteen millions revenue out of the system was thought 
by Fitzsimons to be too high. The argument that a high 
duty would not produce greater revenue was advanced by 
several speakers, and Ames contended for duties so low as 
to prevent smuggling and at the same time raise a larger 
revenue.^ Jackson conceded that revenue had nothing to 
do with the morals of a people.^ Lawrence advocated low 
duties, but Goodhue would reduce but slightly. Madison 
said that the duties had been imposed to favor the interests 
of ISTew England manufactures.^ The House refused to 

1 A committee of three to prepare a bill had been appointed on the 
28th of April.— Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Ses- 
sion, p. 231. 

» Ibid., p. 295. ' Ibid., p. 298. * Ibid., pp. 300-303. 

6 Ibid., p. 303. « Ibid., pp. 308, 310, 312. 

^ Ibid., p. 314. 8 Ibid., p. 315. 

4 



50 ^ HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

strike out the duty of twelve cents on all spirits Jamaica 
proof.^ The New England members, while insisting upon 
The New Eng- a reduction on molasses, were, with one or two 
land attitude, exceptions, not much disposed to press for a 
general reduction.^ Madison, in reply to their arguments, 
said that a tax on molasses would not be more unpopular 
than one on salt, yet the committee did not forego a pro- 
ductive fund because the article was a necessary of life 
and in general consumption. He thought that the citizens 
of the Southern States had more right to complain of the 
oppressions of government than others, if there was the 
disposition to do so that had been represented. The sys- 
tem could only be acceptable to them, he declared, because 
it was essentially necessary to be adopted for the public 
good.^ 

Molasses The Committee substituted five for six cents 

reduced. ^s the duty on molasses, and here the matter 

rested. 

On May 4 the subject of tonnage and discrimination in 
favor of Americans and friendly nations was resumed in 
Discrimination the House. Ncw York and New England 
in favor of were opposcd to, the South and Pennsylvania 

Americans and . „ ,. i t tu-t 11^1 rr> 

friendly na- m lavor 01 the duty. Madison led the ainrma- 
^^*^°^- tive side, Lawrence the negative. Jackson 

favored a moderate duty. The duty was sustained by the 
argument that it was necessary for national security.* Fitz- 
simons showed that two-thirds of the tonnage was Amer- 
ican.* Against the argument that Great Britain would 
make reprisals, Madison retorted that she could not, be- 
cause she used American tobacco, not one-tenth of which 
she herself consumed.^ Southern members enlarged on the 
dangers of high tonnage to their section : the reply was 
that the retention of the duty was necessary as an encour- 
agement of American navigation.^ Burke, of South Caro- 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 318. 

» Ibid., p. 324 et seq. ^ Ibid., p. 331. 

* Ibid., p. 237. * Ibid., p. 240. 

« Ibid., p. 246. ' Ibid., pp. 251-253. 



THE TARIFF— 1789-1820. 51 

lina, denied that the South was jealous of New England 
shippino;. He believed that the citizens generally of the 
Southern States looked with indignation at the powers 
which foreigners had over their commerce.^ Nevertheless, 
the South spoke for low tonnage. The discus- 
sion continued on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of May. low tonnage. 
Upon the motion of Smith to reduce tonnage ^^^ 'B.^)\^s.e. re- 

. . . ,,. ^. fuses to reduce. 

on vessels or foreign countries in alliance with 
the United States from thirty to twenty cents, South Caro- 
lina and Georgia advocated and Northern speakers opposed 
the proposition. After a long debate the House refused to 
reduce.^ On the 7th of May South Carolina urged and 
Pennsylvania resisted the reduction of tonnage on foreign- 
owned vessels. Madison proposed to reduce from fifty to 
forty cents and to increase to seventy-five cents at the end 
of two years, which Tucker feared was too short a time.^ 
It was in this debate that Burke said that the people of 
South Carolina, although rich in lands and servants, were 
" universally in debt." * Madison was very happy to find 
that difierences on the question were not prescribed by the 
geographical situation of the country.' The proposition of 
Madison having been rejected, the original proposition was 
agreed to.® On the same day a committee consisting of 
three members was appointed to report a bill or bills on the 
subject of tonnage. 

When the revenue measure was again before the House, 
and on May 13, China and earthenware, brushes 
and looking-glasses, were added at seven and 
one-half per cent. But a more important article was to 
form the leading topic of the day's debate.^ 
Parker, of Virginia, moved to insert a clause proposes to 
imposino; a duty of ten dollars on each slave tax imported 

. ... slaves., 

imported, that gave rise to a discussion, the 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 256. 

* Ibid., p. 281. ' Ibid., p. 282 a seq. 

* Ibid., p. 285. ' Ibid. 

« Ibid., p. 290. Ubid., p. 336. 



52 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

heads of wbicli are to be found in another volume.^ The 
motion was finally withdrawn.^ 

The tariff bill was ordered to engrossment and third 
readino; on the 14th of May. A drawback of 

May 14. * „ i • . -, . . 

ten per cent, on all goods miported in American 
vessels owned and navigated according to law by citizens 
of the United States had been allowed.' The bill was again 
in committee on the following day, when it was amended 
and reported. There was an elaborate debate 
in the House on the 15th and 16th of May 
upon a motion by Madison to limit the time of the continu- 
ance of the measure. A bare outline may not give a defi- 
nite idea of this discussion; but as it shows the general 
notion of the time on the subject, and as their action was 
to be cited afterwards as a precedent, it is deemed best to 
state the more general facts. Ames doubted the propriety 
of the motion. Fitzsimons did not know whether he 
wished a term of years or a general declaration that the 
act should continue during the public wants.* Lee desired 
three or five years as the limit ; "White thought that the 
Constitution limited revenue as well as appropriation bills 
to two years ; Livermore favored a short limit ; Sinnickson, 
Boudinot, Lawrence, and Ames contended that it would 
injure public credit;® Madison pointed out the danger that 
the President and one-third of either house could defeat a 
repeal, however necessary ; ^ Gerry argued that one or two 
years was enough ; ^ Huntington that seven or ten would 
be, and Bland, Smith, and Page favored the motion to 
limit the continuance. Fitzsimons said that the noise 
made over the public credit tended to lower it.^ Having 
modified his original proposition, Madison moved that the 

act should not continue in force after the — day of , 

unless otherwise provided in the act for the appropriation 

^ Chapter on Slavery before 1820. 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 342. 

' Ibid., p. 343. "Ibid., p. 344. 

* Ibid., pp. 346-348, 354. « Ibid., p. 347. 

^ Ibid., pp. 349-351, 354. « Ibid., p. 365. 



THE TARIFF — 1780-1820. 53 

of the revenue.^ On a division of the question the excep- 
tion was not adopted, but the first part was ^^ , .„ ,.„ 

■■■ ' ^ The tariff bill 

carried by a vote of forty-one to eight. The passes the 
blank was tilled with June 1, 1796. The bill "'''''^• 
then passed the House.^ 

On the 18th of May the tariff bill was read in the Senate, 
and considered on the 25th, 28th, and 29th of May is-june s. 
May and on June 1-5 and 8. On the latter n^ the senate. 
day a committee was appointed, consisting of Ellsworth, 
Morris, Lee, Butler, and Dalton, to consider and report 
upon the expediency of adding a clause prohibiting the 
importation of goods from India or China in ships or vessels 
other than those belono-ino: to citizens of the 

. ^ ^ June 10, 11. 

United States. The bill was further discussed Bin amended 
on the 10th and 11th of June, on the latter of ^^ the senate. 
which days the measure was concurred in with amend- 
ments.^ 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 364. 

* Ibid., p. 366. 

* Ibid., pp. 38, 45, 46. For the Senate debates in outline see Senator 
Maclay's Private Journal for May, 1789, edited by his son. Maclay was 
a busy protectionist who thought that he foresaw that if Pennsylvania 
would let molasses in at a low rate the New England States would allow 
stiff rates of duty on other things. Lee and Grayson, of Virginia, he^ 
says, were opposed to the whole plan of the bill, and the former wished! 
for an excise in place of a customs tax. Maclay complains of the late' 
date at which the bill was introduced. He wanted a large number of 
articles raised from seven and one-half per cent., because the duty under 
Pennsylvania protection had been twelve, and he feared that it would 
afford ground to the opposers of the impost to secure a reduction all 
around. — Private Journal, June 2. 

"I was, as usual, opposed by the Southern people. Before I rose I 
spoke to Mr. Morris [Pennsylvania] to rise and move an augmentation. 
He said ' No.' Mr. Few, of Georgia, asserted that the manufacturers of 
Pennsylvania would be better off under the seven and one-half than 
they had been under the twelve and one-half per cent. Mr. Morris got 
up and asserted the same thing. I declare I could not believe either one 
of them." He says, however, that Morris stated that paper manufacture 
was in the most flourishing condition imaginable in Pennsylvania. — 
Ibid. 

In his entry for June 11, 1789, the tariff being under discussion and 
drawbacks being the item before the Senate, Maclay says that Izard and 



54 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

The House on the 16th of June agreed to certain Senate 
amendments, one of which was to add a duty of three 
June 16. cents a pound on cotton ; another was to strike 

In the House. q^j^ ^[jq drawback of five cents on spirits dis- 
tilled from molasses in the United States and exported. 
The Senate extended the discount of ten per cent, on im- 
ported goods in vessels built and owned to goods imported 
in vessels not built but owned in the United States on the 
16th of May last and so continued until the time of im- 
portation.^ On the 23d of June, after debate, the House 
refused by a majority of two to concur in striking out the 
discriminating clause in favor of treaty nations, and on the 
following day a committee of conference was ordered.^ 
j^j J The attendance upon this committee broke the 

The House sessiou of the House for one day.^ The debate 
fey of discrto- ^^^ ^^^ 27th showcd that the advocates of dis- 
ination in favor crimiuation wcre weakening. A motion to 
tions, and the agree with the Senate was lost by one majority.* 
bill becomes a Finally, OH July 1, after a' fnrther conference, 
the Senate still insisting on its amendment, the 
House yielded by a vote of concurrence of thirty-one to 

Butter, of South Carolina, opposed all drawbacks whatever. "Butler 
flamed away and threatened a dissolution of the Union with regard to 
his State ' as sure as God was in the firmament. ' He scattered his re- 
marks over the whole impost bill, calling it partial, oppressive, etc., and 
solely calculated to oppress South Carolina, and yet ever and anon 
declaring how clear of local views he was. He degenerated into mere 
declamation." Again this quaint old Democratic chronicler proceeds to 
exploit local views: "The Senators from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, and Maryland in every act seemed desirous of making the 
impost productive both as to revenue and effective for the encouragement 
of manufactures, and seemed to consider the whole of the imposts (salt 
excepted) much too low. Articles of luxury many of them would have 
raised one-half. But the meiAbers from the North, and still more par- 
ticularly from the South, were ever in a flame when any articles were 
brought forward that were in any considerable use among them." — Ibid. 

While there is much prejudice in Maelay's Private Journal, it throws 
light on obscure places in our history, and is very interesting reading. 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 455. 

^ Ibid., pp. 590, 591. » Ibid., p. 607. June 26. 

*Ibid., p. 610. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 55 

nineteen. The vote was not sectional, and Madison stood 
out to the last in favor of his discriminating policy.^ The 
President signed the bill on the 4th of July, and thus was 
perfected the lirst tariff measure of the United States. 

On April 21, as we have seen, the question of tonnage 
had arisen.^ It was considered in committee of the whole 
on May 18 ; the bill was read a second time in April 21. 
the House and recommitted on the 26th of Tonnage. 
May, and was debated and amended on the succeeding day 
and further discussed at other sittings. The question of 
discrimination entered largely into these discussions, A 
committee was appointed on June 13 io prepare a new bill.^ 
Such a measure was reported on the 29th of june 13,29; 
June, After a long debate amendments were ^^^^ ^^■ 
reported, and the bill passed on the Slst of July.* It was 
amended by the Senate, but the House agreed to these 
amendments.^ A bill for registering coast trade vessels 
also passed at this session, and the session was not without 
other legislation touching the revenue.® 

The first Ways and Means Committee was appointed on 
July 27 on motion of Fitzsimons. It consisted of Fitz- 
simons, Vinino;, Livermore, Cadwalader, Law- „. „ , „, 

' o ' ' ' The first Ways 

rence, Wadsworth, Jackson, Smith, of Mary- and Means 
land, Smith, of South Carolina, afnd Madison. "™^^ 
As the revenue bill had passed, its first duty was to pre- 
pare estimates of supplies for the service of the United 
States — otherwise the appropriation bill for the current 
year.'^ 

At the second session of the First Congress a number 
of measures on the subject of the revenue engage our at- 
tention. The memorials and report upon slave importa- 
tions are treated of under the head of slavery in another 
chapter. An additional revenue bill was proposed, with 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 610. 

^ Ibid., pp. 176-191. A bill was introduced on that day. 

3 Ibid., pp. 367, 409, 410, 418-420, 451, 453. 

* Ibid., pp. 611, 619, 621, 673, ^ Ibid., p. 892. 

« Ibid., pp. 676, 795, 912. ' Ibid., p. 670. 



56 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

duties chiefly on wines and spirits.^ It was lost after an 
extended debate.^ 

The President having called the attention of Congress 
to the subject, Sherman observed that the proposition in 
the federal convention to found a national university to 
promote science and literature was negatived because it 
was thought to be sufficient that the States should exercise 
the power. Page favored discussing the matter, and if it 
was found not to be constitutional he was for proposing an 
amendment to make it so.^ The subject was, however, 
dropped. 

The topic of duties on foreign tonnage, one of the most 
disputed points of that era, again arose for debate on the 
Duties on for- 10th of May. It was upon a report on a peti- 
eign tonnage, tiou from Ncw Hampshire, asking an increase 

New England ^ i t • n • i • • o -i^i 

and South Car- 01 the dutics ou lorcign shipping, bmith com- 
oiina. plained that this would be unjust to South 

Carolina.* While he was disposed to encourage navigation 
and ship-building, he would not do so at the expense of 
agricultural interests. South Carolina was bound to em- 
ploy foreign shipping. The New England or navigating 
States paid six cents on their vessels, while the foreign 
vessels paid fifty cents. He contended that this discrimina- 
tion was great enough. Besides, he continued, time enough 
had not elapsed to see the effects of previous legislation. 
Jackson, of G-eorgia, also opposed doubling the duty.^ The 
argument on the other side was conducted by Goodhue and 
Sherman, from ISTew England, and Williamson, of North 
Carolina.^ The debate was continued on the 11th, 12th, 
and 14th of May. Madison brought in his hobby of dis- 
crimination, and Fitzsimons changed his position in regard 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 1548, 
1551. 

"^ Considered in committee of the whole June 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 21. It re- 
pealed some duties and levied others. The vote was, ayes, 23 ; noes, 35. 
—Ibid., pp. 1634-1643. 

^ Ibid., p. 1551. * Ibid., p. 1558. 

6 Ibid., p. 1562. « Ibid., p. 1560. 



THE TARIFF — 1780-1820. 57 

to the policy, opposing it. The resolution was amended. 
Madison and other Virginia members advocated discrimina- 
tion against Great Britain ; Northern and South Carolina 
and Georgia representatives opposed. The House decided 
to raise the tonnage on foreign-built vessels from countries 
not in commercial treaty with the United States to one 
dollar, and not to permit such vessels to export unmanu- 
factured articles, the growth of this country, from the 
United States. But there was a provision in favor of ves- 
sels of nations which permitted the importation of fish, 
salted provisions, grain, and lumber in United States ves- 
sels.* A bill in accordance with these principles was pre- 
pared by Madison, Sedgwick, and Hartley, the 

. , . "^ , . TIT June 24. 

special committee on the subject, was debated 
two days, and passed on the 24th of June.^ 

A bill to provide a discriminating duty on foreign ton- 
nage was discussed in committee of the whole on the 25th, 
the 29th, and 30th of June.^ Finally, after two of his 
propositions had been modified and the remaining clauses 
disagreed to, Madison gave up the contest for the principle 
of discrimination and substituted for the propo- 

• ,• 1 • 1 c 1 -J. J. • • ^ Madison gives 

sitions which enforced it two provisions for ^p ^he contest 
reciprocity. Tlieir purpose was to meet such for discrimina- 

T J . r> p • , • • • tion and advo- 

regulations of foreign countries as were inim- cates a reci- 
ical to the United States with counter resrula- P'"«"ty meas- 



iD^ 



lire. 



tions. Jackson opposed even this, but it was 
carried in committee. A bill for the collection of duties 
was reported in the House on July 8. After debate, it 
passed the House on the 17th of July.* 

Bills from the House imposing duties on tonnage and to 
amend the tonnage bill passed the Senate July 12 and 27.^ 

A proposition to extend aid in the form of a loan of 
eight thousand dollars to a Maryland glass manufacturer 
was reported favorably, but was rejected by the House at 



* Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, p. 1581. 
» Ibid., pp. 1581,1647. " Ibid., pp. 1653, 1655, 1657. 

* Ibid., pp. 1673, 1681, 1683. ■* Ibid., pp. 1006, 1019. 



58 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

this session. In the discussion upon it all of the Southern 
members, except those from Maryland, spoke in opposition : 
Sherman also opposed it.* This petition was presented in 
the Second Congress.^ 

At the third session of the First Congress a bill repealing 
the former act which provided a duty on distilled spirits 
was reported on the 30th of December, 1790, and was 
almost continuously discussed in committee of the whole 
until January 13, when it was reported to the House for 
action. Here it was debated for more than a week, and 
passed on the 27th of January by a vote of thirty-five to 
twenty-one. Madison, Lawrence, Sherman, Livermore, 
Excise on dis- Scdgwick, Smith, of South Carolina, Giles, 
tilled spirits. Stone, and Fitzsimons advocated the bill, al- 
though Stone had some objection to that mode of raising 
revenue ; Jackson, Parker, Steele, of North Carolina, and 
Bloodworth opposed the measure, some of them especially 
on account of the excise, which was its leading principle. 
Fitzsimons having remarked that the Southern States did 
not pay their proportion of the impost, Madison showed 
that the trade of the South was carried on by the Eastern 
and Northern States, the consumption of the Southern 
States was proportioned to the numbers of their inhabitants, 
and that in this way they bore their full proportion of the 
public burdens.^ 

This spirits bill was considered and amended in the Sen- 
ate to require five per cent, on the product of duties on 
distilled spirits. The House amended this amendment by 
changing the duty to seven per cent. After a conference 
between the houses the final arrangement was on the basis 
of the House proposition as to duty and the Senate's amend- 
ment as to time of operation.* 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 1630- 
1632. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of Second Congress, vol. iii. p. 247. 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals of First Congress, First Session, pp. 1838, 
1844-1884. 

*Ibid., pp. 1755, 1764, 19G4, 1966, 1971. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 59 

The report of Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, on the 
subiect of manufactures, made to the second Cong-ress, was 
the principtil event of that time connected with 
the topics discussed in the present chapter. Its gress. Hamii- 
points are too numerous and its volume is too *°"'^ ^*^p°''* ""* 

^ T • 1 TT •! manufactures. 

great for condensation here. Hamdton sought 
to overthrow Jeiferson's ideas upon the supremacy of agricul- 
ture. In this famous document the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, while not holding that manufactures are positively 
more productive than agriculture, states that they augment 
the produce and revenue of society in seven ways, namely : 
" 1. The division of labor. 2. An extension of the use of 
machinery. 3. Additional employment to classes of the 
community not ordinarily engaged in the business. 4. The 
promoting of emigration from foreign countries. 5. The 
furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and 
dispositions which discriminate men from each other. 6. 
The affording a more ample and various field for enter- 
prise. 7. The creating in some instances a new and se- 
curing in all a more certain and steady demand for the 
surplus produce of the soil." ^ 

In the third Congress Madison introduced, on the 3d of 
January, 1794, a set of resolutions declaring the necessity 
for higher duties. They were aimed at foreign 1794 
nations — chiefly Great Britain — for making Januarys. 

. f 1 1 * • More discrimi- 

regulations unravorable to American commerce nation resoiu- 
and manufactures. Smith, of South Carolina, ^^^^- * 
opposed and Madison upheld these resolves. The debate 
lasted almost continuously until February 5, when the sub- 
ject was postponed. It was resumed on March 14, and on 
the 17th of April the resolutions were adopted. These 
embargo measures have only a general connection with the 
tariff, and it is, therefore, not necessary to treat them fully. 
They are an important part of the general political history 
of the country and are of special interest to historians of 
the second war with Great Britain. Supplementary acts 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of Second Congress, vol. iii. p. 971 et seq. 



60 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

laying duties on special articles were passed by the third 
and succeeding Congresses.^ 

The subject of a direct tax came up in the fourth Con- 
gress in a discussion in the committee of the whole upon 
a report from the Ways and Means Committee.^ 

Fourth Con- . , ,i • • •,• ^ 

gress. Direct -^^ the ensuiug scssioii a proposition was sub- 
tax on land mitted bv Coit providing for a plan to be re- 

and slaves. -, -, t A • /-n 

ported by the Committee on Commerce and 
Manufactures for a direct tax upon land and slaves. A 
debate on this subject lasted from the 13th to the 20th of 
January, 1797, at which latter date the Ways and Means 
Such a bill Committee wcrc Ordered to prepare a bill.^ On 
passes tiie fifth February 14 the House rejected a motion to 
ongress. gend bills on the subject to the committee of the 

whole, having devolved the duty on another committee.* 



^ The general references here are as follows : Annals of Third Congress, 
pp. 157, 174-209, 209-225, 226-235, 244 et seq., 256-432, 598-all these for 
discriminating or embargo resolutions ; for final passage of supplement- 
ary act above referred to, 1242, and for the act itself, page 1472. An ad- 
ditional bill for the collection of duties was enacted at the first session 
of the fourth Congress (vol. v. of Annals, pp. 105, 2289). Some of the 
special bills are indicated below, with the dates of their passage : On 
licenses for sale of foreign wines and distilled spirits (fifth Congress, July 
5, 1797, Annals, vol. Adi. p. 36) ; additional duty on salt passed at same 
session (July 6, ibid., p. 37) ; a bill for the protection of trade passed 
the Senate by sixteen to thirteen (fifth Congress, Annals, p. 22) and was 
reported in the House December 26, 1797 ; amendatory act of the Seventh 
Congress for collection of duties, April 15, 20, 1802 (Annals, vol. xi. pp. 
1191, 1155) ; act for imposing more specific duties (eighth Congress, first 
session, finally passed March 27, 1804, Annals, pp. 34, 1242). An act for 
additional duties passed the House in the tenth Congress, but failed in 
the Senate (Annals, pp. 454, 1448). Sawyer's proposition for a com- 
mittee on manufactures refused in the eleventh Congress (Annals, p. 
717), December 12, 1809. Additional duties act passed twelfth Congress, 
June 29, 1812 (Annals, vols, xxiii., xxiv. pp. 308, 2338). The House 
bill amending act laying duties on bank-notes was lost in the Senate in 
the thirteenth Congress (Annals, pp. 683, 1244). 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, pp. 841-856. In this discussion Gallatin 
denounced the public debt as a public curse, and was rebuked for it by 
Dayton. 

» Ibid., pp. 1857, 1942. 

* Ibid., p. 2154. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. gj 

In the fifth Congress a bill providing for a 

direct tax passed both houses July 12, 1798.^ ' "^^^' 

The bill to incorporate the Mine and Metal Company 
was defeated on its third reading in the Senate isoi. January 
March 2, ISOl.^ It had on the 30th of January ^o. March 2. 
passed the House as amended by a vote of fifty to forty- four.^ 

In the first session of the seventh Congress a puno-ent 
debate took place in the Senate on the propo- 
sition to reduce duties on cofltee, tea, and com- gresT* The^tar- 
mon sugar, which, it was argued by Rutledge ^' becomes a 

J -r, ■" , X- 1 j_ .1 party question. 

and Uayard, were necessary articles to the poor. 
This was denied by Southard. Randolph, Smilie, Clai- 
borne, Giles, and Samuel Smith were prominent in opposi- 
tion, and it was charged by Davis that the Federal party 
had changed ground, as those who favored reduction had 
formerly laid these taxes. The Ways and Means Com- 
mittee were directed to report on impost and tonnage 
duties, but resolutions of particular instruction to that 
committee were rejected. The matter had become a party 
question.* 

As the act providing additional duties, levied by the 
twelfth Congress, was a war measure and was ^ ,,,^ ^ 

"_ ' Twelfth Con- 

to continue in force one year only after the gress. a war 

conclusion of a treaty of peace, it might well '^^ ' 

be passed over except for its connection with the tarifi:^ 

legislation of a later day. It finally passed the Senate on 

the 29th of June, 1812.^ This act imposed 

1 T , IT- 1 1 181'-- June 29. 

one hundred per cent, additional to the per- 
manent duties previously imposed and ten per cent, addi- 
tional to that upon imports in vessels not of the United 
States. An additional tonnage duty of one dollar and fifty 
cents per ton was also imposed on such vessels. 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of Fifth Congress, p. 609. 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of Sixth Congress, vol. x. p. 758. 

3 Ibid., p. 989. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of Seventh Congress, vol. xi. pp. 434- 
447, 461. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, vols, xxiii., xxiv. pp. 308, 2338. 



62 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Direct tax and The thirteenth Congress passed a bill pro- 
internai duties, yiding for a direct tax and internal duties.^ 

The fourteenth Congress came immediately after some 
Fourteenth remarkable, and it preceded one or two very 
Congress. distinguished, national legislatures. In the 

personnel and work of the fourteenth Congress we shall 
find as much that is commanding as in any American 
Congress whatever. Elected at the close of a harassing 
and mostly unsatisfactory war, its duties were neither few 
nor light. The whole financial and commercial status of 
the country was to be adjusted anew to the changed situa- 
tion of affairs. To order the machinery of government so 
as to interfere with no industry and at the same time to do 
equal justice to all portions of the Union; to assist the 
work of restoring normal business and not to give a wrench 
here or a jar there where the abnormal had entered most 
largely ; to regulate and not to destroy or re-create com- 
merce, and to produce by legislation no unfavorable change 
in the new system of manufactures which had sprung up 
during the war and the previous stormy period of embargoes, 
— these were the obligations affecting the economies of the 
United States. But there was as much delicacy required, 
as we shall see in the chapter on the United States Bank in 
a subsequent volume, in the solution of the problem of the 
currency. The question of internal improvements, too, we 
shall find, pressed with scarcely less force than and de- 
manded as statesmanlike consideration as either of the 
others. 

The first measure of revenue which was enacted by this 
1814. House- Congress was one repealing the duty on house- 
hold furniture. ^^qI^ fumiturc. It passcd on the 3d of April.=^ 
A special act to repeal duties on articles manufactured in 
the United States passed the House on the 3d of February.^ 
Petitions for the encouragement of cotton manufactures 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, vol. xxvii. p. 2739. Approved August 
2, 1813. 
^ Gales and Seaton's Annals of Fourteenth Congress, p. 278. 
»Ibid., p. 862. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 63 

were presented from Massachusetts, New York, Rhode 
Island, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and other States/ 
The House passed, with Senate amendments, 

1815. 

at this session a bill to reduce direct taxes to 
$3,000,000 for one year. The tax for the current year was 
$16,000,000. For the next fiscal year it was $5,723,152.25, 
and for internal duties, $5,963,225.88. 

The first step taken toward a general revised tariff of 
duties was by the Secretary of the Treasury in jg^g 
a plan and accompanying letter laid before the ^ir^t ^^ep tow- 
House on the 13th of February and referred tariff, February 
on the same day to the Committee on Ways and ^^• 
Means. This committee, through Mr. Lowndes, its chair- 
man, reported a bill on the 12th of March. Eight days 
later this bill was considered by sections,^ The bill as re- 
ported proposed a duty of twenty-five per cent. 
ad valorem on both cotton and woollen manu- 
factures imported. Strong moved to increase the duty on 
woollen manufactures twenty-eight and on cotton manu- 
factures thirty-three and one-third per cent. This amend- 
ment brought up the question of the protection of domestic 
fabrics.' Lowndes replied to Strong's speech and defended 
the action of the committee in reporting a 

^ " The debate. 

smaller duty than that recommended by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The important debate of the 
following day, March 21, is merely indicated in the annals 
of the Congress. Strong withdrew his motion, but the 
part relating to the cotton duty was renewed by Clay, who 
subsequently modified the rate to thirty per cent. Smith, 
of Maryland, replying to a speech by Mr. Clay in favor of 
his proposition, stated some objections to the bill and to 
the recommendations of the Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. 
Lowndes answered Clay's and also Smith's objections. It 

^ Found on many pages of the " Congressional Annals." There were 
also petitions from Kentucky and Massachusetts and the city of Phila- 
delphia for the reduction of duties on domestic manufactures. — Pp. 458, 
611. 

' Ibid., p. 1233. ' Ibid., p. 1234. 



64 A HISTORY OF TH^ SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

is said that " he entered into an ample and particular de- 
fence of the system reported on the subject by the com- 
mittee." Clay's first motion was negatived by a vote of 
fifty-one to forty-three.^ But the Kentuckian was not dis- 
couraged. His modified motion was urged with more 
elaboration than the former one. He discussed the general 
question of the expediency of protecting American manu- 
factures. Robertson replied and defended the report and 
bill. On the 22d of March Ingham, of Pennsylvania, a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, made a strong 
practical speech in favor of out-and-out protection. " The 
revenue," he said, " is only an incidental consideration, and 
it ought not to have any influence in the decision upon the 
proposition before the committee."^ He considered the 
bill as involving a great principle of national policy, and 
that it was not a mere contrivance to collect taxes from the 
people. He contended, against the argument of Smith, of 
Maryland, that the proposed amendment would not destroy 
the East India trade. But he faced that contingency. " If 
we must be reduced to the alternative of abandoning our 
manufactures or the East India trade, the latter," in his 
opinion, "ought to give way, because it was the least valu- 
able to the nation."^ He combated as plausible, but not 
founded in sound policy, the theory that our encourage- 
ment of manufactures ought to be confined to fabrics of 
first necessity,* and denied that the bill and the report of 
the Secretary of the Treasury favored the manufactures of 
the Northern and Middle States more than those of the 
Southern.^ The bill proposed, he said, a duty of four 
cents a pound on sugar, which was more than thirty-six 
per cent, ad valorem on the cost of the article, and yet it 
was complained of by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Robertson. Even the paper that members wrote upon had 
the water-mark of the British crown, although it was 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1237 ; House Journal, Fourteenth 
Congress, First Session. 
* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1240. 
3 Ibid., p. 1241. * Ibid., p. 1242. * Ibid., p. 1244. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 65 

manufactured in the District of Columbia, such was tlie 
prejudice against home manufactures. He insisted that it 
was the bounden duty of the Congress to protect the in- 
dustry of the country from such discouragements.' After 
Chairman Lowndes had replied at length to the cotton manu- 
arguments of Clay and Ingham, Clay's motion factures.. 
to make the duty on cotton manufactures thirty per cent, 
prevailed by a vote of sixty-eight to sixty-one.^ 

During this day's debate Smith, of Maryland, presented 
a statement showing from calculations on the basis of the 
proposed duties the advantage which the manufacturer 
would have over the importer. On every one hundred 
pounds sterling of cotton goods, the bona fide cost in Eng- 
land, the retailer's cost would be one hundred and forty- 
seven pounds, ten shillings, or forty-seven and one-half 
per cent, in favor of American manufactures, besides the 
price of raw materials.^ 

The motion of Smith to increase the duty on iron sheets, 
rods, and bolts from one dollar and fifty cents 

Til T fi' ITT '^^^- Sugar. 

to two dollars and nfty cents per hundred- 
weight having been agreed to, he moved to tax loaf sugar 
eighteen cents per pound. He gave way to Huger, of 
South Carolina, who proposed to strike out the proposed 
duty of four cents per pound on brown sugar and sub- 
stitute two and a half cents.* Lowndes thought that the 
duty in the bill was even too low : sugar manufacture de- 
manded encouragement as much as any other.^ But Shefley 
contended that the increase of the culture of the article was 
sufficient argument that it was profitable and needed no 
protection. The poor would sufier from the high duty.^ 
Calhoun opposed Huger's motion, as did Wilde, but Mil- 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1246. 

* It is regrettable that this speech and some others made during the 
debate by the illustrious Carolinian were not preserved. His reported 
speeches on the Baldwin tariff of 1820 show that he had a wonderful 
grasp of the subject. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1248. 

* Ibid., p. 1258. * Ibid., p. 1262. «Ibid. 

6 



66 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

nor, Pitkin, and Pickering advocated it. Pitkin proposed 
three, Forsyth five cents. The latter protested with warmth 
against what he termed the injustice of taxing the South 
Forsyth and to support the manufactures of the East and 
Gaston com- jq^ denying to the South any security in re- 
justiee is done tum for its manufactures.^ The committee of 
to the South. ^^^ wholc negatived five cents, and Clay advo- 
cated three and a half, but hoped that four would be re- 
stored. Gaston, of North Carolina, opposed the duty and 
earnestly entreated the House " to consider those unfortu- 
nate manufacturing States which were burdened on the 
one hand to encourage the manufactures of the East and 
taxed on the other to protect the products of the South." ^ 
By a vote of sixty-four to fifty-eight the duty was fixed at 
three and a half cents. 

The engrossing topic of the debates on this tariff measure 
was the duty on cotton manufactures. Webster renewed, 
on the 25th of March, a motion he had withdrawn pre- 
viously to strike off the duty proposed by the bill and 
Webster Clay ^^ Substitute the following : " For two years 
and cotton next eusuing the 30th of June next a duty of 

manufactures. .i • , ,77 n j 

thirty per cent, ad valorem for two years, to 
commence at the termination of the two years last afore- 
said, a duty of twenty five per cent, ad valorem, and after 
the expiration of the two years last aforesaid a duty of 
twenty per cent, ad valorem."^ Clay moved to amend the 
amendment by inserting three years in the first instance, 
one in the second, and to conform the remainder to these 
changes. If the amendment he offered prevailed, said Mr. 
Clay, four years would still reduce the duty to the min- 
imum proposed by the original motion, and would give to 
our own manufactures an adequate protection at the time 
of the greatest difficulty. Lowndes assented. Satisfied 
that twenty-five and even twenty per cent, was a sufficient 
protection to the manufactures in question, he would never- 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1263. 
' Ibid. ' Ibid., p. 1270. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 67 

theless support the proposed motion, persuaded that it 
would eventually produce the state of things which he 
thought was most desirable.^ Root, of New York, opposed 
"the graduation by which the manufacturing establish- 
ments would be sustained for two years and then left to 
their fate." He claimed that a bounty in the nature of a 
monopoly would be given to the manufactures already 
established. "Ward, of Massachusetts, who represented 
commercial interests, also said he would encourage manu- 
factures by giving them a permanent support and not a 
bounty for a short time which would discourage tempo- 
rarily foreign importations.^ "Webster was " not prepared 
to say that the government was bound to adopt a perma- 
nent protection, or one which would exclude those goods 
already in the country." He declared that he was opposed 
to a fluctuating policy, and that the object of his motion 
was to impose a duty so moderate as to insure its perma- 
nency and be still an adequate one.^ Calhoun, believing 
that twenty per cent, as a permanent duty was ^j^ 
ample protection, opposed Clay's amendment, Twenty per 
which was supported by Pitkin on the ground ^g"*" ^^™*" 
that it held out encouragement to additional ample protec- 
establishments, and by Clay himself, who con- 
tended that in three years experience would enable Amer- 
ican manufacturers to judge whether they could compete 
with the foreign manufacturers of articles of necessity.* 
Smith, of Maryland, did not think that twenty per cent, 
was adequate protection, but he said it would give an 
advantage of fifty per cent, over British manufacturers 
of cotton goods.® Ross " wished not to see one class of 
the community enslaved by another," Further, he ob- 
served, " there was already great necessity for a strong 
country party to withstand the manufacturing and 
commercial parties" in the Congress.® Clay's motion was 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1270. 

' Ibid., p. 1271. 3 Ibid. -• Ibid., p. 1272. 

6 Ibid. « Ibid., p. 1273. 



68 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

rejected and Webster's agreed to, the latter by a large ma- 
jority.* 

Woollen fabrics and imported books were the chief 
articles considered on March 26. Lowndes remarked con- 
cerning the former, and speaking with special reference to 
blankets, that he thought a decided present encouragement 

was required. But all through the discussion 
Fi^ ^^redue- ou that tariff be seemed to look to a final re- 
tion the correct duction, "that correct standard," to quote his 

words, "which only ought to be encouraged 
and looked to."^ A modification proposed by Ingham, 
which gave one more year for the duty to run on blankets 
and woollen rugs, prevailed. Members from the commer- 
cial States, as Pickering, Root, and Ward, fought for a 
discrimination in favor of the East India trade.^ 

Iron was seventy-five cents per hundredweight in the 

bill, but Webster secured a reduction to forty- 

Webster secures „ , rm i ^i • -j. • ^ 

a reduction of fivc ccuts. I he vote ou this item was sixty- 

the iron duty ^^yo to fortv-three.* Eflbrts both to increase 
.as proposed. *^ i^.iikap 

and to reduce the duty on coal tailed.* Alter 

some general consideration the bill, with the amendments, 

■was reported to the House on the 27th of March.® 

The first amendment of the committee of the whole 

which appears to have been agreed to by the House on 

April 2, when the bill was before it for action, 

unmanufactured was that wliich rcduccd the duty on unmanu- 

wooi also low- factured wool from fifteen to seven and one- 

ered. 

half per cent, ad valorem. Root opposed the 
proposition. It prevailed by a vote of seventy-three to 
forty-two. The duty on cotton was debated a great part 
of at least three days longer, besides the general discussion 
just before the final passage of the bill. Forsyth's motion, 
made on the 2d of April, to strike out the whole of the 
graduated duties on cottons adopted in committee, and 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1273. The vote on Clay's amendment 
was forty-seven ayes .to .sixty-one noes. 
* Ibid., p. 1274. 3 Ibid., p. 1275. * Ibid., p. 1285. 

■^Ibid, * Ibid., p. 1289. 



THE TARIFF— 1789-1820. 69 

reduce the duty to twenty per cent, from June next, opened 
for discussion the general question of protection.^ Gaston, 
a leading Southern member of the Federal party, spoke 
for an hour in opposition to " the policy of burdening the 
community by an extravagant duty on imports, for the 
purpose of encouraging domestic manufactures." Another 
extended speech on the same side was made by Cuthbert, 
also a Southerner. But such efforts were unavailing. The 
policy of moderate protection was already in the ascendency. 
Forsyth's motion was deemed too sudden a measure of 
reduction, and was rejected. Among the sixty-five yeas 
were Barbour, Clayton, Forsyth, Gaston, Lowndes, Picker- 
ing, Randolph, and Root; Calhoun, Ingham, Pinkney, Pit- 
kin, and Sergeant were recorded among the sixty-nine 
negative votes. But the battle had been hardly contested 
and the vanquished were not prepared to yield. The 
struggle was renewed on the day following on a proposition 
of like nature by Forsyth. Long speeches for and against 
this were made, and the proposition was modified by Smith, 
of Maryland, who offered the old Clay amendment at a 
lower rate of duty : it proposed to make the limit of the 
twenty-five per cent, duty three years instead of two. It 
was successful by a vote of seventy-nine to seventy-one. 
Then the amendment of the committee of the whole — 
twenty-five per cent, for three years and twenty per cent, 
thereafter — was agreed to by a large majority.^ 

The vote in the House on reducing the iron duty from 
seventy-five cents to forty-five was eighty-nine 

t^n V^ 1 • ^- /-, 1 Calhoun votes 

ayes to titty-one noes. On this question Cal- with the high 
houn voted with the high tariff men, although, !*^"^ ^^^ ^^ 
as has been seen, he favored a lower duty on 
cotton manufactures.^ The House reduced the duty on 
brown sugar to two cents and that on lump sugar to ten. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1313. 

« Ibid., p. 1325. 

' Ibid. In subsequent chapters the reasons for the action on this 
occasion of Calhoun and other Southern men are stated as a part of the 
debates on later tariff bills. 



70 A HISTORY OF TEE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

The discussion on the 4th of April was one of the most 
interesting of the series. The manufacturing 
^" " interest went over to the commercial on Pick- 
ering's proposition to reduce the proposed duty on India 
cottons to the rate of the existing double duties after March 
1, 1817, and it was adopted by a large majority.^ Ran- 
dolph moved to strike out so much of the second section 
of the bill as fixed the minimum price of cotton goods 
(except nankeens directly from China) at twenty-five cents 
per square yard. He followed in a speech in which he 
arraigned all protection whatever. Calhoun's reply was a 
long and fascinating argument, conceding some 
replies to of the objcctious Urged by Randolph, but con- 

Kandoiph. tending that the security of the country de- 

manded the passage of the measure. Mr. Calhoun seldom 
spoke with greater zeal or ability than he did on this occa- 
sion. " Manufacturing," he said, " produced an interest 
strictly American, — as much so as agriculture, — in which 
it had the decided advantage of commerce or navigation. 
It will excite," he enlarged, " an increased attention to 
internal improvements, — a subject every way so intimately 
connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength 
and the perfection of our political institutions."^ In his 
opinion " the liberty and the union of the country were 
inseparably connected." He said that the word " ' dis- 
union' comprehended almost the sum of our political dan- 
gers."^ Cuthbert, Randolph, and Gaston spoke in reply. 
After further discussion and after a modification of Ran- 
dolph's motion had been rejected he withdrew it. "Wilde's 
motion to reduce the duty to twenty per cent, ad valorem 
was also defeated, — fifty-one to seventy-six.* 

Speeches on the passage of the bill, April 8, were made 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1329. 
» Ibid., p. 1335. 

» Ibid., p. 1336. Calhoun, in 1816 : "The liberty and the union of the 
country are inseparably connected." Webster, in 1830: "Liberty and 
union — one and inseparable — now and forever." 

* Ibid. 



THE TARIFF — 1789-1820. 71 

by Randolph, Smith, of Maryland, Lowndes, Calhoun, 
"Wright, and Telfair. Calhoun denied Ran- 
dolph's charge that there was a mysterious tariff bm of 
connection between the tarifi" and bank meas- ^^^^ p*^^ ^^^ 

. House. 

ures.^ A motion to postpone the bill was lost 

by a vote of forty-seven to ninety-five. Finally the tariff 

bill of 1816 passed the House of Representa- 

. . , . April 27. 

tives by a vote of eighty-eight to fifty-four.^ 

It passed the Senate with amendments, and was approved 

by the President. 

Nearly all of the opposition to the measure came from 
the South. It appears from a number of votes ^^^^^ ^jj ^j^^ 
that of the members present about fifty were opposition from 
always opposed to anything like a protective 
policy.^ The positions of the various speakers and of other 
members who merely voted their preferences have been 
indicated. Some of these gentlemen at a later day were 
found on the opposing side and the views of others were 
greatly modified : in the space of about twelve years Web- 
ster had become a protectionist and Calhoun an anti-pro- 
tectionist ; Lowndes in four years had grown to be one of 
the sturdiest advocates of a revenue as contradistinguished 
from a protective policy. But it is not given to statesmen 
always to be consistent ; for consistency is sometimes error, 
and not even the angels know all things that concern the 
welfare of men. 

A supplementary act of revenue was passed at the second 
session.* 

At the first session of the fifteenth Congress an act passed 
increasing duties, chiefly on articles made of isis. Fifteenth 
copper, silver-plated furniture, cut glass, brads, congress, 
tacks, etc.* A supplemental bill to abolish internal and 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1351. 

* Ibid., p. 1352 ; House Journal, Senate Journal ; Annals, p. 334, for 
passage in Senate. 
' Ibid., pp. 1347, 1348, and other places. 
*Ibid., pp. 297, 1034. 
« Ibid., pp. 383, 1777, 2580. 



72 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

direct taxes was also passed at the same session.^ A bill 
to increase the duties on iron in bolts, bars, pigs, castings, 
and nai]^, and alum, as amended in the Senate, finally 
passed April 20, 1818.^ On the same day the President 
approved an act continuing in force the fourth paragraph 
and first section of the act of April 27, 1816, which ex- 
pired June 30, 1819, until June 30, 1826.^ It sustained 
Avoollen and part-woollen manufactures at twenty-five per 
cent, ad valorem, which, according to the terms of the act 
of 1816, would have been reduced to twenty per cent. 

During this as during the preceding Congress petitions 
for the encouragement of manufactures, especially cotton 
p titi ns f r ^^^ woollcn manufactures, were presented, 
protection of chiefly from the l!^orthern States.* Near the 
man actures. i^eginning of the first session Drake, of Massa- 
chusetts, had moved in the House that the Committee on 
Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to inquire into 
the expediency of granting bounties to manufacturers who 
should manufacture a given number of yards of cotton and 
woollen goods of a certain width, and that a permanent 
fund for the payment of the same should be appropriated.' 
The memorials increased in the sixteenth Congress and 
asked for the encouragement of domestic manufactures 
generally, as well as to those of cotton and woollen fabrics. 
Counter petitions and remonstrances against the existing 
as well as proposed duties were presented from the Vir- 
ginia agricultural societies and from merchants in several 
Northern cities.^ 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, pp. 35, 1769, 476. 
'Ibid., pp. 387, 1776. 

' Annals of Fifteenth Congress, p. 383. 

* Ibid., pp. 175, 446, 486, 494. * Ibid., p. 508. 

« Annals of Sixteenth Congress, pp. 38, 41, 45, 75, 78, 119, 237, 537, 
712, 1403, 2286, 2293, 2307, and many other pages ; and in the second 
session at pp. 21, 24, 1821, etc. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE TARIFF— 1820-1828. 

The first protective measure introduced merely as such 
and pressed upon grounds irrespective of the question of 
revenue was the Baldwin tariff of 1820. This 
was an abortive measure, but its characteristic protection as 
features were so important as illustrating the protection. The 

^ * Baldwin tariff. 

changes of economic ideas, and the arguments 
by which it was enforced or opposed were so luminous, no 
apology is required for some general consideration of the 
chief points in the debate. Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, re- 
ported the bill from the Committee on Manufactures, This 
was the first tariff measure ever reported from that com- 
mittee, and the only bill for the raising of revenue since 
the first that was not reported by the Committee on Ways 
and Means. The increase proposed was over the duties 
provided by the bill of 1816 as modified by 

,.-,-,.„ Proyisions. 

that of 1818. Articles were divided into five 
classes, and the additions were roundly as follows : On the 
first class, two-thirds; on the second, one-third; on the 
third, one-fourth ; on the fourth and fifth, about one-third. 
The last two classifications included woollen and cotton 
manufactures, upon which, respectively, the increase was 
from twenty-five to thirty-three for woollen and cotton not 
from India, and twenty-five to forty for the latter imported 
from India.^ Chairman Baldwin explained the Baldwin's 
provisions in a long and very able speech in speech. 
which were employed the arguments against British su- 
premacy and for the necessity for national industry. He 
considered " that which was taken from the earth as raw 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals, vol. xxxvi. p. 1913. 

73 



74 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

material," and would encourage equally as manufactures 
every change in its form or value by labor.^ He claimed 
that the bill would make ample provision for revenue, and, 
estimating the imports the same as in 1818, he thought that 
the increased duties would be five million eight hundred 
thousand dollars.^ He contended for a new policy, — one of 
protection. In five years, he said, the impost diminished 
from thirty-six millions to sixteen, more than three millions 
of which was in suit. As the expenditures of the govern- 
ment were twenty-six millions, it would be necessary to 
resort to internal taxation. He opposed strongly total 
reliance upon imposts. " Bottom your revenue," was his 
expression, " on the manufactures of the country. Com- 
merce has too long been the spoiled child of government."^ 
He insisted that the flood of imports had exhausted the 
country's resources.* 

It is not necessary to state formally, as in the case of a 
successful bill, the progress of this measure through the 
House and its course up to the point of final action in the 
Senate. Some of those who opposed it favored certain 
reductions.^ Among the arguments used against the bill 
Arguments in wcrc the following: that manufacturers wall 
opposition. gg^y ^}^q^ ^^y were invited by the legislation of 
Congress to invest capital and that the home markets are 
overstocked and further protection is demanded to save 
them from ruin ; ^ that protection would diminish the value 
of land, shutting out the agricultural section from the 
foreign market and burdening the people with taxation; 
that commerce would be confined to the local ports, as 
Tyler said, " the bays and creeks ;" ^ that manufactures 
would flourish without the factitious aid of the government ; 
that the theory of entire independence of other countries 
was a theory which aimed to subvert the ordinances of 
heaven itself; that it was true that there was depression 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1936. 

* Ibid., p. 1938. =• Ibid., p. 1940. 

* Ibid., p. 1943. * Ibid., p. 1946. 
6 Ibid., p. 1955. ■> Ibid., p. 1959. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 75 

of trade, but it arose from palpable causes,^ and if retalia- 
tion was resorted to, the United States would drive valuable 
products out of the market and not establish a market in 
their stead. Protection was denounced as a 

Arguments in 

selfish and contracted policy. In favor of favor of the 
the bill, by speakers who succeeded Baldwin, ^^^^' 
it was urged that American prosperity should not be made 
to depend upon the misfortunes of Europe ; ^ the limits of 
foreign demand for our agricultural products were pre- 
carious, the selfishness of foreign powers rendering retalia- 
tory measures necessary in order to secure our own inde- 
pendence ; * that the argument was not fair which arraigned 
one industry and excused others for inevitable ills; that 
customs were unsteady and made it necessary to resort 
again to internal revenue ; that the foreign trade had been 
protected too much by the operations of the government, 
and that the time had come for the extension of the prin- 
ciple to manufactures ; * that in consequence of the policy 
that had been pursued villages had been abandoned in the 
"Western States and cotton factories in the East had been 
ruined.^ Clay foretold what Whitman and so many others 
did not foresee, that New England's situation would insure 
her the first and richest fruits of the protective tarifi:'.^ 
McLane used the phrases, " national labor," " national 
capital," repeatedly, and while not entirely satisfied with 
the bill, preferred it to the existing tarifi^^ He would have 
confined the measure to the protection it would afi()rd to 
the labor of the country and left the subject of revenue to 
its "appropriate jurisdiction." He, too, like other protec- 
tionists of the time, looked to the internal revenue to sup- 
port the government, and defended the principle of internal 
taxation.^ Like Clay, he said that the foreign political 
economists were plausible theorists, but unsafe guides in 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1961. 

» (Storrs) Ibid., p. 1964. » (Clay) Ibid., p. 2035. 

* Ibid., p. 2047. * Ibid., p. 2048. 

• Ibid., p. 2051. ^ Ibid., p. 2095. 
« Ibid., p. 2097. 



76 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the pending discussion.^ There was no intention, he urged, 
to change the agricultural character of the country to a 
manufacturing oue.^ Indeed, all of the speakers acknowl- 
edged that at least nine-tenths of the power and influence 
of the country were agricultural. McLane declared that 
it was " the result of the experience of all times and ages 
that the success of manufactures has depended upon gov- 
ernment aid." This aid, he insisted, was much more neces- 
sary in this country where there were difficulties peculiar 
to our situation and where we had to contend with the 
bounties and premiums of other nations.^ The wealth 
produced by individuals in manufactures went into the 
common stock. The agriculturist felt the impulse in the 
increased value of his land and estate.* This speaker con- 
tended that the ultimate effect of protection would be to 
reduce the price of the article in a considerable degree, 
and he appeared not quite willing to concede that it would 
be enhanced at all, even for a short time.^ 

Ingenious and logical arguments against protection were 
made by Barbour and Archer, of Virginia, and a very 
cogent, practical speech was delivered by Whit- 
Archer, ' man, of Massachusetts. The latter, speaking 
Whitman. mainly for the commerce of the country, said 
that it could never be wise to force the growth of manufac- 
tures that would always require extraordinary aid to keep 
them in operation and which were not essential to defence 
in time of war. He charged that the scheme proposed was 
for the benefit of a few manufacturers and of a small 
number of merchants who hoped to engross the whole of 
the mercantile business.^ He averred that the manufactures 
of ]^ew England were moderately but reasonably encour- 
aged. Silsbee, from the same State, thought that the com- 
mercial interest would not be able to bear the provision 
of the bill that three-fourths of the duties were to be paid 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2097. 

« Ibid., p. 2098. ' Ibid., p. 2106. * Ibid. 

6 Ibid., p. 2110. « Ibid., p. 2007. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 77 

in cash, and denied that the credit system in the collection 
of duties had worked loss to the government.^ The com- 
mercial interests, as represented in the House, however, 
were more favorable than in 1816 to the principle and 
policy of protection. 

The chief speeches in opposition to the bill were from 
the agricultural section, the South. Archer showed that 
the friends of the protective system admitted The opposition 
that manufacturing establishments had gone to ^^^"^ ^^^ ^°'^'^- 
ruin under a tariff which averaged about twenty-five per 
cent. The additional duty was only about seven or eight 
per cent., as he had been informed. "Was this amount 
sufficient to retrieve from ruin and protect these establish- 
ments ? If it was not, then it was unnecessarily oppressive 
as to other interests, besides being a nugatory imposition. 
^ The bill he characterized as an appeal to public authority 
for the relief of private distress. He criticised the policy 
of choosing a time of great privation for experiments in- 
volving an addition to the sources of expense, afiecting all 
classes.^ Philip Pendleton Barbour argued that the bill 
would diminish revenue, because it would lessen the amount 
of importations and increase smuggling.^ It was a viola- 
tion of the principles of political economy to build up a 
manufacturing system by means of legislative interference. 
He contended, against arguments that had been advanced, 
that there was nothing peculiar in the situation of the 
country which would establish an exception to the general 
rule. While the wealth of the great manufacturers was 
increased by manufactures, they did not add to the totality 
of the wealth of the nation. Precisely as you enhance the 
price of the commodities which the mass of consumers 
purchase, you diminish the value of the products of their 
labor, the value of which consists in the power of com- 
manding the products of the labor of others. The interest 
of the agriculturist, he continued, is precisely identified 



Gales and Seaton's Annals, pp. 1989, 1991. 
Ibid., p. 2021. * Ibid., p. 2058 et seq. 



78 A HISTORV OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

with that of the community ; that of the manufacturer ia 
not only not identified, but is in some degree opposed to it.^ 
In a political point of view he was therefore led to ques- 
tion the policy proposed, which was to create and sustain 
by artificial means a class in society in some degree neces- 
sarily opposed to those of the rest of the society. The 
contention of Mr. Barbour was opposition, not to manu- 
factures, although at times he appeared to be verging 
towards that, but to governmental influence in their 
behalf. 

Lowndes, in reply to McLane, Baldwin, and others, ob- 
served that the question was not whether manufactures 
, were useful : a great deal of trouble had been 

Lowndes op- c> 

poses the meas- taken to provc what nobody had denied ; nor 
was it even the question whether it was the 
policy of the government to encourage them by duties 
upon foreign importations. He said that his friends had 
shown by arguments which had not been answered that 
that employmentof industry which afforded the most profit 
to the individual would ordinarily conduce most to the 
wealth of the State, and that the duties or prohibitions which 
should direct any portion of the labor of the country to a busi- 
ness in which it could not otherwise engage would usually 
be found to substitute a less profitable employment for one 
which was more so. If they are right, he continued, the 
present bill which proposed a large additional encourage- 
ment to particular branches of industry must be entirely 
indefensible ; but if there were doubt as to the correctness 
of opinions which they held in common with every political 
economist to whose work time had given its sanction this 
doubt was enough to dissuade the House from further in- 
terference on a subject upon which they had perhaps already 
gone too far.^ We cannot create capital.^ Replying to 
McLane, he remarked that the expectation must be utterly 

* This means only so far as that interest is protected at the expense of 
the community. 
' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2115. 
» Ibid., p. 2116. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 79 

illusory that a bounty could be given to any branch of 
industry without at least a temporary sacrifice by some 
others. He exposed the fallacy which regarded manu- 
factures, but not commerce, as home industry, and declared 
that the industry employed in commerce was American 
industry. In employing the saw-mill or the spinning-jenny, 
he said further on, we acted upon the same principle of 
getting what we wanted as cheap as we could, and we pro- 
duced the same distress in throwing out of employment 
the persons whose ruder industry could not stand this new 
competition. There was one admission, however, which 
he frankly made : the effect upon home industry was the 
same of improved machinery or of foreign trade ; but the 
trade which benefited ourselves benefited also the country 
whose wants we supplied or whose products we consumed. 
The principle of this objection, he stated, was not so much 
anti-commercial as anti-social.' In encouraging the manu- 
factures of the country by duties upon importations, his 
friend from Delaware would do the very thing which he 
meant to avoid, — he would promote one branch of Amer- 
ican industry at the expense of another. Meeting another 
argument, Lowndes contended that it was no decisive 
recommendation of the plan of encouraging particular 
industries that it had been applied with some differences 
to commerce as well as to manufactures. Whatever the 
expenses on account of commerce may have been, com- 
merce herself was made to pay them. The advantage 
given to the navigation interest in the monopoly of the 
coasting- trade was connected with considerations of de- 
fence, not of profit. He then discussed philosophically the 
effects of the encouragement of manufactures in the mode 
proposed. Of the withdrawal of labor and capital from 
commerce or agriculture for the enlargement of manufac- 
tures he would say nothing, but would claim that the effect 
of the distribution of these among the different branches 
of manufactures would be one of " unmixed injury." ^ He 

» Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2117. * Ibid., p. 2118. 



80 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

appealed not to theory, but to fact. In 1818, by laying a 
duty on copper in sheets, two establishments were main- 
tained which employed iifty-four workmen ; on the other 
hand, four thousand braziers who worked up this copper 
had suflered heavy and general injury.^ He considered the 
general state of the country and especially of the revenue, 
and took a more hopeful view than did the speakers of the 
other side. Perhaps, he remarked on this head, the un- 
prosperous condition of the revenue was proof that the 
prosperity of a few years had rendered our expectations 
unreasonable.* In reply to Baldwin's opening speech 
Lowndes said, "If, in addition to the exclusion of the 
foreign article, you lay an excise upon the domestic product, 
it is evident the country must pay a double tax, although 
the government will not receive it." ^ In opposition to the 
protectionists generally he argued that " in an extensive 
and thinly-peopled country restrictions upon trade would 
raise the price of manufactures, but not of grain. In a 
populous and fully cultivated country they would raise 
the price of grain, but not of manufactures. The last 
is the situation of England, the first that of the United 
States."* He thought that there was no nation in the 
world which, in proportion to its income, paid so great 
a bounty to its manufacturers as the United States.^ If 
the bounty in question were greater than the value of 
the article justified in any rational view of public policy, 
we applied the money of the country injudiciously; but 
if a less bounty would produce the efifect which we de- 
sired, we gave it away without object and without ex- 
cuse. A resolution of his looking to information on this 
had been rejected by the House as useless, and the chair- 
man of the Committee on Manufactures had said that such 
information had never been given. But Mr. Lowndes 
showed from a sentence of Secretary Dallas's report in 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2119. 

'^ Ibid., p. 2120. s Ibid., p. 2121. 

* Ibid., p. 2123. 6 Ibid., p. 2125. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 81 

1816 that the rate of duties in that report was founded on 
evidence of the degree of encouragement which would 
enable the manufacturer to meet the importer.^ That evi- 
dence was laid before the House. Lowndes cited Hamil- 
ton's famous report on manufactures to show that Hamil- 
ton's opinion was that bounties to American manufactures 
should be highest at first.^ Duties four times as great as 
Hamilton recommended, continued Lowndes, were now 
levied upon many of the most important articles, and 
were discovered to be inadequate and nugatory. As a 
further argument against the proposed increase he observed 
that the appreciation in the price of money made the duties 
levied on cotton and woollen manufactures much more 
efiectual than in 1816, yet Congress was asked to raise 
them.^ He concluded with the remark that he believed 
the bill under consideration was injurious to the govern- 
ment, oppressive to the people, and dangerous to the sta- 
bility of manufacturing industry.* 

Lowndes in this speech dwelt upon the vital and less 
usual points in the discussion, but refused to repeat obvious 
arguments which had been employed by the ablest of his 
coadjutors. His method was logical without formality, 
and he was throughout luminous in illustration, practical 
in application, and philosophical in the statement of first 
principles. It was the most powerful argument on either 
side during the entire debate. 

On the 29th of April the bill passed the House by a vote 
of ninety-one to seventy-eight.^ Some of the ^ ^jjog 
New England members voted with the South, The bin passes 
almost for the last time on measures of this kind 
that any considerable number of them were found on that 
side of the question. After debate the House, on May 1, 
by a large majority, rejected a bill for regulating the mode 
of collecting duties.® 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2126. 

' Ibid., p. 2127. ' Ibid., p. 2130. * Ibid., p. 2135. 

6 Ibid., p. 2155. • Ibid., pp. 2159-2172. 

6 



82 A HISTORY- OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

The Baldwin tariff bill was postponed in the Senate 
until the next session, when it was finally defeated.^ In the 
Defeat in the second session in the House Baldwin reported 
Senate. from the committee on manufactures a bill to 

regulate duties on imports and for other purposes. Besides 
a reference to the committee of the whole, nothing appears 
to have been done with the measure.^ 

If the debates during this Congress do not afford suffi- 
cient evidence of the depressed condition of the country, 
it may be seen by reference to the newspaper files of the 
period.^ But surely that trouble is unnecessary and readier 
proof is at hand. In his report from the Committee on 
Manufactures presented by Chairman Baldwin on January 
15, 1821, he says : " There is no national interest which is 
in a healthful, thriving condition." * A table of exports 
for 1790 and 1820, accompanying this report, states the 
^ ,. . ,^ following facts : Tobacco, 1790, 101,272 hogs- 

Decline in the o ^ j ■> o 

amount of ex- heads; 1820, 83,940; decline in thirty years, 
^'^- 17,332 hogsheads. Wheat in 1790 was ex- 

ported to the extent of 1,018,339 bushels; in 1820, 22,137; 
a decline of 997,202 bushels, or almost the whole crop of 
the former period. But flour, pickled fish, pork, turpentine, 
and pot and pearl ashes showed some increase. Cotton is 
not named, but the remark appears that " the value of this 
article exported is to the amount of all our own domestic 
exports as twenty-two to fifty-one." The report of the 
Contraction of Secretary of the Treasury at this time shows 
the currency, ^j^^t the currcucy of the United States had 
contracted in three years from $110,000,000 to 145,000,000.^ 
Baldwin's report states that there was more specie than 
ever before in the country, but that there was no employ- 
ment for capital.* Business had declined fifty-nine per 
cent. ; and embarrassment and distress had increased in 

^ Gales and Seaton'a Annals, p. 656 ; Senate Journal. 

' Ibid., p. 863. 

^ Especially vols, xvii.-xx. of Niles's Register. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, vol. xxxvii. p. 1553 (appendix). 

» Ibid., as above, p. 487. ^ Ibid., p. 1562. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 83 

the same ratio.^ The report alleged that manufactures — 
internal activity — would restore the prosperity of the 
country.^ The assertion is made that beyond the circle 
where manufactures flourish there is no currency, and the 
broader statement follows that the employment of foreign 
industry on fiibrics to which our own is competent is death 
to manufactures, just as the importation of articles con- 
genial to our soil is the bane of agriculture, — both are said 
to exhaust the national resources.* Following; ^^ „ 

o The Committee 

this report is an able reply by the Committee on Agriculture 
on Agriculture. It is a report upon the peti- ''®p°'^^- 
tions of the Virginia agricultural societies. A meeting of 
these societies declared that Britain had never been able, 
with all of her legislative oppression of her own subjects, 
to make her silk manufactures productive from the revo- 
cation of the Edict of Nantes to the day of the petition.'* 
It was upon these and other remonstrances against the 
protective policy that the report of Baldwin was framed. 

Memorialists from Maine cite Hamilton's report and 
show that the protectionists had adopted his other anti-pm- 
principles and disregarded their application, tection views. 
They say : " In the case of iron, the duty of which was not 
half what it is now, he recommended a diminution, under 
an idea that it was almost a raw material, necessary in every 
kind of mechanism, and the same with regard to molasses, 
which we could ourselves distil. He could never have 
imagined that the time would come when it would be 
deemed good policy to make the people pay from thirty to 
one hundred per cent, more for goods to the manufacturer 
than they might otherwise be bought for of the importing 
merchant." ^ 

The Philadelphia commercial convention, in their peti- 
tion of November 4, 1820, observe : " If it be asked who 
are the rightful judges in regard to the expediency and 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1563. 

' Ibid., p. 1564. ' Ibid., pp. 1565-1567. 

* Ibid., p. 1519. * Ibid., p. 1495. 



84 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

justice of the proposed tariff, it is surely fair to answer 
that the payers who constitute a very large majority of the 
whole nation are certainly more competent to decide than 
the expectant receivers, when the only inquiry is, how much 
of the money of the former shall be paid to the latter and 
to what extent it shall be taken, not only without their 
consent, but in opposition both to their entreaties and re- 
monstrances." ^ The merchants of another quarter of the 
Union were active in opposition. " It is sufficient," is the 
language of the Charleston memorial of December 8, 1820, 
"that a government takes care that the employment of 
each individual inflicts on others or on the community at 
large no injury, and that each shall receive equal and uni- 
form protection ; all interference beyond this is useless or 
pernicious."^ It is an argument against manufactures in 
a thinly settled country. The petitioners shrewdly asked 
that as in Great Britain bounties to manufactures were 
followed by a bounty to agriculture, so in the United States 
there should be bounties for exportation of agricultural 
products. Their cry was, " Let us make the system uniform 
and equal," which was what the protectionists were crying 
along with their efforts to do j ust the reverse of what these 
petitioners desired.^ 

A supplementary act to regulate the collection of duties 
Seventeenth passcd the Senate at the first and the House at 
Congress. ^|jg sccoud scssiou of the Seventeenth Congress,* 

and was enacted. A bill making perpetual the act of 
March 3, 1815, passed the House.^ 

At this second session of the seventeenth Congress a 
much more important measure was to be considered. The 
agitation for the increase of duties, begun in 1820 and then 
repulsed by the action of the Senate, was never discon- 
tinued. On the 9th of January, 1823, Mr. Tod, from the 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1500. 

* Ibid., p. 1506. 3 Ibid., p. 1516. 

* Annals of Seventeenh Congress, p. 378 ; also appendix. 

» Ibid., p. 433 ; for former bill, pp. 630, 636, 647, 666, 669, 795, and 887 j 
also JournaL 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 85 

Committee on Manufactures, reported in the House of Rep- 
resentatives " a bill for the more eflectual en- i^<^ 
couragement and protection of certain domestic January 9. 
manufactures," which was referred to the com- bm reported. 
mittee of the whole. Briefly, the bill proposed its provisions. 
to raise the value of woollen or part-woollen manufactures 
below that duty to eighty cents ; of cotton, except nankeen 
imported direct, and dyed cloths, to twenty-five cents per 
yard, with per cent, in each case added. The duty on 
woollens was fixed at thirty per cent, ad valorem ; there was 
twenty-five per cent, on cotton, silk, flax, or hemp, not par- 
ticularly specified; thirty per cent, on nankeen, with other 
details too numerous for mention.^ The measure was de- 
bated from January 29 until February 14, when Tod, before 
one of the most important parts had been perfected — the 
duty on raw materials — moved to discharge the committee 
of the whole and thus bring the matter before the House. 

After an exciting discussion this motion was negatived by 
a vote of sixty-seven to eighty-eight.^ The bill did not 
again come up during the Congress, which expired on 
March 3. Some of the arguments and scenes 

The debate 

in this debate merit reproduction. Cambreleng 
on the first day showed that the lowest description of plain 
woollens under the proposed duties would cost the poor 
ninety -three and one-half per cent., amounting to prohibi- 
tion of the foreign article. Tod confessed that that wa» 
intended.^ He explained that the new bill added five per 
cent, to existing duties on woollen goods with a minimuna 
price of eighty cents per square yard excepting blankets,, 
flannels, worsted, and stuif goods. Cottons, except as to a 
minimum price of thirty-five cents a square yard on checked 
and striped cloths, were left as in the existing tariff. Hemp 
was raised from thirty to forty-five dollars per ton. On 
bar iron the additional duty was five dollars per ton. One 
of the arguments for the bill was that coarse cottons had 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals of Seventeenth Congress, p. 544. 
« Ibid., pp. 727-1016. « Ibid., p. 727. 



86 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

been reduced in price one-lialf, while the home article was 
better in quality than that it supplanted.^ Tattnall, of 
Georgia, differed from other speakers in opposing manufac- 
tures, — at least he said he did not wish to see the manu- 
facturing interest thrive to any great extent. " It is the 
policy of our government," he contended, " to discourage 
everything which has a tendency to limit the possession of 
wealth to a few." ^ He claimed that while the manufactures 
were yielding from seven to thirty per cent, on investments, 
the planters on the sea-coast of Georgia and South Carolina 
barely secured five per cent.' The classification of the 
duties in the bill was assailed by several speakers as careless 
if not uncandid. Tattnall became greatly excited and ex- 
claimed, " By Heaven ! we will not tamely submit to this 
treatment!" Tod had said that one-half of the country 
were in distress ; Smyth, of Virginia, could not agree to 
throw the distress of one-half on the other half, and chal- 
lenged the constitutionality of the protective policy.* Cam- 
breleng, too, asserted that it was never contemplated to 
confer on this confederated government the 

Cambreleng. ... 

power to make one section tributary to another."* 
This able debater, a Southern man by birth, who repre- 
sented one of the New York City districts, reviewed the 
history of the origin of tariff legislation.® " We find," he 
said, " the patriots of that day debating for days, na}", 
weeks, together, whether the duty should be five or seven 
and one-half per cent. At the present day gentlemen talk 
familiarly of ninety and one hundred per cent, and of pro- 
hibition. ISTow for the first time we are presented with a 
tarifi:' which, so far from having a view to revenue, aims a 
direct blow at some of its most productive sources." ^ Cam- 
breleng's speech on this occasion was a learned and com- 
prehensive survey of the economical situation, broad in its 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 732. 

» Ibid., p. 753. » Ibid., p. 755. 

* Ibid., pp. 758-760. * Ibid., p. 767. 

* Churchill C. Cambreleng was a native of North Carolina. 
» Ibid., p. 761. 



THE TARIFF — 1S20-1828. 87 

recognition of the obligations of the country to maintain 
reasonable duties to preserve vested interests, but incisive 
in its exposition of the fallacy of taxing extortionately raw- 
material on v^hich certain manufactures are based. As to 
the policy of restriction and exclusion, he said, " It is not 
upon foreign governments v^^e make war ; but we commence 
a speculative and blind warfare upon the knowledge, in- 
genuity, enterprise, and industry of mankind. The ex- 
penses of this experimental war we raise by heavy taxes 
upon our fellow-citizens." ^ Among the opponents of the 
bill were Durfee, of Rhode Island, and Gorham, of Massa- 
chusetts; of the number of its supporters, Mallary, of 
Vermont, and Eustis, of Massachusetts. Mallary, fluent 
and optimistic, did not believe in the theory of natural se- 
lection as applied to industry. He recited instances of the 
happy effect of interference with the agricultural products 
of the South and Eastern manufactures.^ Eustis said that 
to encourage the growth of the raw material was at all 
times dictated by sound policy.^ Among the benefits 
which he mentioned as flowing from the system of protec- 
tion proposed were the increase of demand for farmer's 
products and the increased value of land.* Commerce and 
navigation were also benefited. He considered the objects 
of the bill to be national and not sectional. The Penn- 
sylvanians continued to advocate the protective Buchanan and 
policy, as in former congresses. Buchanan, Go^hara. 
criticising some of Gorham's arguments, averred that the 
latter had " boldly declared that the people of the South 
should resist such a law" as that proposed. Buchanan 
claimed that the bill did not make a change in the well- 
settled policy of the government.® In these debates the 
claim was made that President Monroe and Secretary 
Crawford were in favor of further duties ; but the former's 
message, even in the passage quoted, did not entirely 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 766. 

» Ibid., pp. 773, 814, 824. » Ibid., p. 891. 

* Ibid., p. 892. ' Ibid., pp. 804, 897. 



88 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

bear out the assumption, for he said that the subject 
" should be touched with the greatest caution and a critical 
knowledge of the effect to be produced by the slightest 
change." 

The sectional tone of the discussion was very perceptible. 
In addition to what came from Tattnall and Cuthbert, of 
Georgia, there were certain very bitter expressions used by 
Van Wyck, a Northern speaker.^ He said that for fifteen 
years previous to 1817 the Northern States made three 
hundred and forty million dollars as opposed to two hun- 
dred and fifty-five million dollars by the Southern. From 
1817 domestic exports had declined, in 1821 amounting 
only to, Southern, twenty-seven million, four hundred and 
forty-nine thousand, eight hundred and thirty-six dollars; 
Northern, eight million, one hundred and five thousand, 
two hundred and sixty-four dollars. He asked if it could 
be a subject of wonder that the inhabitants of the Northern 
States should be dissatisfied with their prospects ; whilst a 
Southern population of only two-fifths of the whole num- 
ber of inhabitants of the States should receive an annual 
income of twenty-seven million dollars, the other three- 
fifths could barely obtain eight million dollars. Disclaim- 
ing such a purpose, he did make an appeal to the feelings 
of the Northern people. Woodcock, another speaker from 
that section, deprecated sectionalism and bore down heavily 
on Southern men, whom he accused of having resorted to 
that sort of argument.^ Attack upon and defence of the 
manufacturing system as to its effect on the economies, 
politics, morals, religion, education, etc., were rather more 
frequent and animated, perhaps, in the discussion of this 
bill than in previous debates.' 

The tariff bill of 1824 was reported from the Committee 
on Manufactures by Tod, of Pennsylvania, on the 9th of 
January.* The subject came up for consideration on the 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, pp. 983-994. 

2 Ibid., p. 995, 3 Ibid., p. 998 and other passages. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of Eighteenth Congress, p. 930. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 89 

10th of February.^ In the explanation and defence of the 
measure is seen in part what there was of justi- 1804. 
fication in its adoption. The arsruments in op- Eighteenth 

, 1 • 1 11 Congress. Tar- 

position are also presented with reasonable m- wu reported, 
fulness and all possible perspicacity. These Januarys 
arguments and counter-arguments are at first given baldly, 
without much comment. When the tarifl:* measures of the 
period are thus outlined in the words or ideas of the men 
of those times, a vividness and certainty are imparted which 
no subsequent remarks of the author in criticism can efface 
or obscure. " One object of the bill," explained Mr. Tod, 
" is that as to certain manufactured articles, 

Tod. 

the raw materials of which exist in abundance 
at home, we should by legislative provisions give to our 
own workmen, not the exclusive supply and command of 
even our own market, but barely a part of the business of 
furnishing our own people with the plain, rough necessaries 
of life. Another object of equal importance was that, in- 
stead of continuing to support the agriculturists of Europe 
in almost everything, we may be compelled by using more 
home-manufactured articles to give to the farmers of our 
own country some market for their products. And another 
object, not inferior in magnitude to either of the former 
two, was to give to the country that strength and power 
which arise from possessing within itself the means of 
defence, and to rescue it from the danger and disgrace of 
habitual reliance upon foreign nations for the common 
daily necessaries of life."^ He held that the tariff of 1816 
was inadequate : at that time " the theory of foreign specu- 
lative writers called political economists" prevailed; and 
he stated the theory in its essentials, in order to shoAv that 
it had been injurious to the country. " All the devasta- 
tions and losses of the war," he claimed, "were nothing 
compared with the devastations and losses of manufacturing 



J Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1469. The vote upon taking it up waa 
ninety-three to eighty-two. 
« Ibid., p. 1471. 



90 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

capital under the tariff of 1816."^ Proceeding from a 
statement of the causes of a decline of industry, as he 
conceived them, to the remedy, he held out to the country 
the advantage of high duties. These were not to be im- 
posed for the purpose of enabling the manufacturer to sell 
his wares high, for he contended that precisely the opposite 
effect would follow the imposition. He declared that pro- 
hibition had had the effect invariably in England, France, 
this country, and every country known, to cheapen manu- 
factures. The fact was more important to know than the 
reason for it. He thought that it was probably explained 
by the assurance of a market, a steady demand.^ 

With one exception the bill left the cotton duties as they 
were. The minimum valuation of imported cloths was 
raised from twenty-five cents the square yard to thirty-five 
cents. The intention was to give protection to two or 
three finer grades than those then protected. Tod ex- 
plained, with scant regard for his severe arraignment of a 
moment before of the tariff of 1816, that " as to the very 
lowest priced goods and those in the second and third 
grades from the lowest, the addition here proposed to the 
duty was merely nominal. The duty as to them is already 
eflectual."^ A specific duty of six cents a square yard was 
imposed on cotton bagging, as he averred, for the benefit 
of Kentucky and other Western States, and was intended 
to be prohibitory.* 

The effect of the bill on the revenue, so it was claimed, 
would be satisfactory to every friend of the measure. For 
three years or longer the revenue would be increased, but 
even if it were not the real wealth of the country would be 
increased by protecting domestic industry.* 

Tod showed a disposition to get the measure through 
the committee of the whole without debate ; but all of his 
friends were not so eager. Clay wished to give time to the 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1474. 

2 Ibid., p. 1476. » Ibid., p. 1477. 

* Ibid. 6 Ibid., p. 1478. 



THE TARIFF — 1S20-1828. gl 

petitions, of which Cambreleng said there were over a 
hundred. Barbour and Randolph submitted remarks 
which invited discussion.^ The debate opened, „^ , ^ , 

^ ' The debate 

as that of 1789 had done, with the article opens as in 
of spirits. Foot, of Connecticut, moved to ^'*^^' 
strike out the duty. Clay conceded that the clause in 
question might diminish the revenue, but argued that 
" wealth at home was to be preferred to that which was 
to be brought into the country from abroad." ^ Garnett, 
of Virginia, said that this tax operated the reverse of what 
was claimed ; it was not an encouragement to agriculture. 
Tomlinson, another Connecticut member, opposed the 
clause as interfering with the Connecticut trade in rum 
with the "West Indies. He would support the bill if that 
were stricken out. One of the low tariff men called atten- 
tion to the break in Speaker Clay's array .^ A sharp dis- 
agreement on this question arose the following day between 
the Eastern and the Western protectionists. Wickliffe, of 
Kentucky, declared he would vote against the measure if 
the duty on foreign spirits were left out. He said that the 
bill was not for revenue, but was a measure protective of 
the manufacturing interests of the country.* But he criti- 
cised the disposition which he said was manifested to put 
all of the burdens upon agriculture.^ Recrimination was 
indulged in by both East and West, and other sections 
twitted Connecticut with her interest in the matter. The 
discussion was carried on by Mallary, Tracy, Foot, Clay, 
Tod, McDuffie, and others. The Southern view was pre- 
sented by McDuffie, who averred that if it could be shown 
that the proposed duties were connected with the inde- 
pendence, the power of the country, this consideration 
would always have great weight with the Southern people ; 
and a system of manufactures tending to these objects, 
although it might bear more heavily upon them than upon 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1480. 

2 Ibid., p. 1483. ' Ibid., p. 1486. 

* Ibid., p. 1489. ' Ibid., p. 1490. 



92 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

others, would not be disapproved. But, lie remarked, a 
system of a combination of particular interests for the par- 
ticular benefit of each was one which would never receive 
their sanction.^ Alluding to the protection offered in the 
bill to indigo, he said, " Nothing would appear more idle 
to the people of that country than a protection in the 
manufacture of indigo." Tracy, of New York, would 
" go to the whole length of excluding the foreign article 
in whatever part of the tariff we depart from revenue as 
the object."^ The discussion on spirits was continued on 
the 13th of February. Tomlinson argued that if the ad- 
ditional duty were imposed it would drive the inhabitants 
of the West Indies to seek elsewhere supplies which they 
had been accustomed to receive from the United States.* 
Tracy's motion to strike out fifteen per cent, and insert 
fifty was lost, and the committee then by a vote of sixty- 
seven to one hundred and two rejected Foot's motion to 
strike out the whole clause.* 

An effort to lower the proposed duty on woollen manufac- 
tures of coarser fabrics from thirty to twenty-five per cent. 
ad valorem failed. Conner, of North Carolina, the mover, 
said that the duty was intended to be prohibitory, and that 
the article was necessary to a large class in the Southern 
country. The vote was seventy-one to one hundred and 
six.' 

Brent, of Louisiana, then precipitated a debate of several 
days' duration by his motion to strike out the duty on 
cotton baggins:. It was contended that Ken- 
tucky, for whose benefit the duty was imposed, 
could not supply one-sixth of the bagging needed, as was 
shown by the Kentucky census of 1822, and that even that 
was of inferior quality.® The protectionists replied that 
" it would not do to say that the States of Kentucky and 
Ohio could not manufacture all the cotton bagging wanted 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1497. 

» Ibid., p. 1499. 3 Ibid., p. 1510. 

* Ibid., p. 1512. 6 ibi(j.^ p. 1515. 
•Ibid. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 93 

for all the cotton-growing States in the Union." Tod con- 
tended all through the debate on this article The duty on 
that the three cents duty on raw cotton was a '^"•^ cotton. 
protection, and this tax was availed of to enlarge on the 
reciprocity in advantages which was asserted by the friends 
of protection.^ Trimble defended the quality of the Ken- 
tucky bagging, which had been depreciated.^ Hamilton, 
of South Carolina, replying to the argument of Tod, said 
it " was perfectly consistent with the whole scope of the 
bill ; that if, by the laws of God and nature, any part of 
our country should not enjoy equal advantages of soil, 
climate, etc., with another, Congress was to exert a despotic 
power with a view to equalize the advantages."^ He 
showed that South Carolina paid a cotton bagging tax of 
sixty thousand dollars a year. In another speech he said 
that the proposed duty was equal to seventy-one per cent., 
but Trimble asserted that it was only twenty-six.* The 
latter also said that the planter made three dollars clear on 
every bale of cotton by counting the bagging as cotton, or 
twenty dollars clear in every bolt of bagging. This state- 
ment was corrected by Brent as to the foreign cotton sold, 
nearly the whole crop raised.® The protectionists averred 
that it did not matter whether the duties on sugar, rice, and 
cotton were intended to protect the home manufactures; 
they did, in fact, protect them.^ Cobb, of Georgia, and 
others offered to give up this tax if the duty on hemp was 
yielded.^ Cobb observed that the object was distinctly 
avowed not to protect existing manufactures, but to assist 
in bringing others into existence, the price being laid on the 
Southern States. The estimates of this cost varied from two 
hundred and forty thousand to three hundred thousand 
dollars a year, the latter being Cobb's and Mercer's.^ Cook, 
of Illinois, remarked sarcastically that cotton-growers could 

'II — — — K 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1517. 
» Ibid., p. 1519. » Ibid., p. 1518. 

♦ Ibid., p. 1542. * Ibid., p. 1543. 

6 Ibid. * Ibid., p. 1544. 

8 Ibid-, pp. 1543, 1546, 1556. 



94 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

afford to give up the duty, as no further protection was 
needed. He contended that the amount of the duty on 
cotton bagging was sixty-six thousand dollars, while the 
bounty on cotton, as he phrased it, amounted annually to 
nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars.^ 

A difterence arose on this question between Buchanan 
and Tod. The former, not disposed to hazard everything 
on an item which he saw was unpopular in the South, 
proposed a duty on cotton bagging of four and one-half 
cents per square yard, and at a later day favored two and 
one-half cents as " a middle course." ^ But Clay thought 
that the real question before Congress was whether the 
men of Inverness and Dundee should continue to have a 
monopoly or whether there should be an American com- 
petition.^ Owen, on the other side, summed up the policy 
of the bill as in efiect this, that the East and West must 
co-operate and the South must submit and contribute.* It 
was argued by McDuffie and many others that the South 
would thus contribute without the object being 
secured. McDufiie said, "As a question of 
political economy, you can only protect what exists." He 
declared that it was to insult his understanding to tell him 
that the culture of cotton had ever been protected by the 
legislation of the government. " Estimating," he continued, 
" the average value of cotton where it is grown at twenty- 
five cents, the duty on the importation of cotton, being 
three cents per pound, was in fact only twelve and one-half 
per cent., ad valorem, less than the average duty laid on all 
other objects for the purpose of revenue alone, and could 
therefore not be regarded, either in intention or in fact, 
as a protecting duty." It did not operate upon cotton any 
more than if it did not exist.® 

In a broad, practical, and even eloquent argument of 
great length Cambreleng, the merchant, declared that the 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1545. 

« Ibid., pp. 1546, 1565. » Ibid., p. 1548. 

* Ibid., p. 1550. 6 Ibid., p. 1553. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 95 

bill was incompatible with the principles of our govern- 
ment, unjust, impracticable, warring on commerce and 
agriculture, and destructive of revenue at a time when it 
was most needed. " The industry of every country," he 
said, "must be regulated and protected according to the 
circumstances and condition of the country." Deprecating 
a search into the duty records of France and England to 
mould our laws in absurd conformity with their ancient 
statutes, — the venerable follies of every age and country, — 
he asserted that there was " neither wisdom, honor, nor 
profit in a countervailing war of permanent monopolies." 
He continued, " The prosperity of nations depends on their 
natural advantages and their constitutional security of prop- 
erty and right. Measures violating either the one or the 
other injure the aggregate interests of the country." He 
attributed the growth of the country to "the wonderful 
influence of constitutional government upon the industry 
of nations, and not to any of our ingenious regulations." ^ 
Alluding to the class of citizens who had been held up by 
the protectionists as having enjoyed too much consideration 
at the hands of the government, he observed, " Whatever 
may have been the speculations of our legislators, our 
farmers have generally pursued their labors without being 
conscious of any advantages derived incidentally from our 
laws, and certainly without having solicited any such pro- 
tection." He further remarked on this branch of his sub- 
ject, " The bill proposes to impose additional duties, but 
not prohibitory, on agricultural productions to the value 
of little more than a million of dollars, while it embraces 
heavy duties, amounting to prohibition, on manufactures 
requisite for agricultural use to the value of almost twenty- 
six millions of dollars." ^ " The arrangements of the bill" 
were called by him " this compact of balanced monopolies." 
In his conclusion, Cambreleng made some remarks which 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1571. The whole speech is found at 
pp. 1568-1580. 
» Ibid., p. 1572. 



96 A HISTORY OF THR SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

perhaps throw a ray of prophetic light on the events of a 
few years later, — the tariff excitement of 1828-33. " Our 
cambreieng's Confederacy now rests," was his confident state- 
warning, ment, " on a rock of adamant, — on our political 
morality, — on an invincible attachment of an enlightened 
people to the best constitution in the world. But we must 
not fearlessly calculate on the immutability of our Union 
if we adopt measures like this; for no free government 
can stand firm where it becomes a principle of legislation 
habitually and without an imperative political necessity to 
violate property and natural rights." He urged that the 
forms of a free government should not be retained while 
the action was upon the principles of an absolute govern- 
ment. Two days of debate were devoted to the motion of 
Owen, of Alabama, directing the Committee on Ways and 
Means to report what the effect of the measure would be 
on the revenue.^ This proposition was resisted stoutly by 
Tod, McLane, Buchanan, Ingham, Mallary, and others. 
McLane contended that the information ought to come 
from the Committee on Manufactures. The bill, he said, 
was not for revenue, but for protection ; there was no need 
for alteration in any of its details.* On the other hand, 
Livingston thought that the information was indispensable 
to an intelligent vote on the bill, and gently criticised the 
Committee on Manufactures for not laying before the House 
a detailed and authentic statement.^ 

On February 23 we again find the House in committee 

of the whole considering the tariff bill. Mar- 
February 23. . , , , Ml J- 1 

tmdale moved to strike out the enacting clause. 
As this was an extraordinary course for a friend of the 
measure to pursue, he explained that he took it to bring up 
the general question more regularly, as the enemies of the 
bill were fighting it at every stage on general principles.* 
On the following day Owen's resolution was amended so as 
to send the matter to the Secretary of the Treasury instead 



* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1586. 

» Ibid., p. 1589. ' Ibid., p. 1590. * Ibid., p. 1627. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-18^8. 97 

of to the Ways and Means Committee. The vote was 
eighty to sixty-nine, and showed confusion in the protection 
ranks, not, however, as great as that which followed the 
adoption of McLane's amendment discharging the com- 
mittee of the whole pending the report of the Secretary of 
the Treasury. The effect would have been to stop debate. 
But a motion of Eich to insert words which would show 
that the purpose of the bill was to advance the commercial, 
manufacturing, and agricultural interests of the country 
placed McDuffie and Owen in opposition, and Floyd cut 
the Gordian knot by a motion to lay the resolution and 
amendments on the table, which prevailed by a vote of 
ninety-six to ninety-two. If the protectionists were con- 
fused at the beginning, the low tariff men were still more 
80 before the ending.^ 

Continuing his speech, begun on the day previous, Mar- 
tindale, of New York, took high ground in favor of the 
indissolubility of the Union and the centrality of the gov- 
ernment of the United States.'' " I would remind gentle- 
men," he remarked, " that there is one sacred, 

. , , , . . . , „ Martindale. 

invariable, enduring principle ot our govern- 
ment which no portion of our country can ever violate with 
impunity, and that is, as the majority must govern, their 
decision must prevail and the minority must submit. Why, 
sir," he continued, forgetting or ignoring the distinction 
between counties and States, " as well might the county of 
Suffolk, upon the extreme end of Long Island, talk of re- 
belling against the State of New York for determining to 
build a canal in which she has no interest but to which she 
is obliged to contribute, as the cotton-growing section of 
our country oppose the authority of this government be- 
cause the bill on your table, if adopted, may limit in some 

* But there was general confusion. The last vote was go-as-you-please. 
Some of the strongest tariff men were against the motion and some of 
the leading anti-tariff men in favor of it ; as Barbour and Cambreleng, 
along with McLane and Tod, in the affirmative, and Forsyth and Mc- 
Duffie, with Mallary, in the negative. 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1632. 

7 



98 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

measure their cotton market and add an inconsiderable 
sum to the expense of its production." He denied ex- 
plicitly the right to dissolve the government by an appeal 
to the sovereignty of the people.^ This part of Martin- 
dale's speech was a reply to the warning uttered by Cam- 
breleng. Martindale also argued against custom duties and 
in favor of internal taxes. He adhered to the general con- 
tention of the protectionists, that the large market opened 
in Europe for Southern products was unequal for the North, 
placing that section at a disadvantage, and that the South 
must be ready to yield some of the advantage she enjoyed 
for the purpose of building up Northern industry.^ The 
parties to the debate accused each other of pro- 
ducing^ excitement.^ Burton asked if it was 
just that all of the rest of the Union should be taxed to 
make up the difference in the price of labor between Scot- 
land and Kentucky in hemp products.* This part of the 
bill excited prolonged and angry discussion. Clay promised 
in eighteen months to produce bagging from Kentucky as 
good as the Scotch article, in equal abundance, and for less 
price, if the manufactures of that State were permitted to 
" exist under hope." Brent's motion, on the 26th of Feb- 
ruary, to strike out the clause was lost, — ninety-four to one 
Cotton bagging hundred and seven. Buchanan's motion to 
reduced. rcducc the bagging duty from six to four and 

one-half cents per square yard was agreed to by an affirma- 
tive vote of one hundred and nineteen.^ 

P. P. Barbour moved to strike out the duty of twenty- 
five cents per bushel on wheat, and was supported by Gar- 
nett, who claimed that the Southern States were in a 
ruinous condition produced by the taxation of the federal 
government, which did not leave them sufficient income to 
appropriate to the improvement of the soil.® He also said 

^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1633. A few years make a difference 
in the views of sections, if, meanwhile, there has been a change of cir- 
cumstances. Only ten years had elapsed since the Hartford convention. 

» Ibid., p. 1650. « Ibid., pp. 1656, 1657, for example. 

« Ibid., p. 1660. 6 Ibid., p. 1679. « Ibid., pp. 1679, 1689. 



THE TARIFF — 1S20-1828. 99 

that " from the commencement the Southern States had 
home nearly the whole burden of taxation." ^ Mullary 
attacked Barbour for moving to eliminate from the bill an 
agricultural product not exported by Virginia. Marvin 
stated that the item was included because a meeting on 
Long Island had asked for the duty.^ 

The first appearance in the debates on this tariff of Daniel 
Webster was on this day. He explained the favorable effect 
of a low duty upon wheat upon the United States and State 
treasuries and the manufacturing and commercial interests.^ 
An angry colloquy occurred between Ingham 
and P. P. Barbour, the latter resenting the between ing- 
former's remark about Virginia's political pride '^^'^ '^^^ ^"•'■' 

... 1 bour. 

and ambition, — " if Virginia looked beyond her 
own confines for anything but political power." * After a 
debate between Clay and Webster respecting Canadian 
wheat, Barbour's motion was rejected.^ 

Iron was a more important item than either bagging or 
wheat. The first section of the bill proposed a duty of 
one dollar and twelve cents per hundredweight 

•^ " Iron. 

on iron in bolts and bars not manufactured by 
rolling. This provision Fuller, of Massachusetts, on the 
28th of February, moved to strike out. Pie said that the 
proposed duty amounted to one hundred and sixteen thou- 
sand, five hundred dollars, or thirty-eight thousand, eight 
hundred and thirty-three dollars in addition to the existing 
duty. As the duty was raised in 1818 from nine to fifteen 
dollars, he argued that it ought not again to be increased.* 
This speaker replied to the argument from the balance of 
trade and drain of specie, which had been employed by the 
friends of a high tarifiE". Our importations from Russia 
and Sweden were paid for by sugar, coffee, and other 
products of the West Indies and by the commodities of the 
East which were the fruit of our circuitous trade. He 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1688. 

* Ibid., p. 1694. » Ibid., p. 1695. * Ibid., p. 1697. 

6 Ibid., p. 1701. The vote was 71 to 113. « Ibid., p. 1705. 

L.ofC. 



100 ^ A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

showed that the original cargo, of trifling amount, was 
shipped from this country. In the distant market the 
invoice was of small consideration; a cargo of great value 
was obtained in return, not suited so well for the United 
States, where similar commodities were plentifully supplied, 
hut well adapted for European consumption. At Ham- 
burg an ample market furnished exchange for St, Peters- 
burg or Stockholm, or the cargo itself was sold in one of 
these latter cities at a profitable advance, and a cargo of 
iron or hemp was provided for American ports. This 
trade brought, instead of taking away, specie.^ Fuller 
showed by official figures that the foreign commerce of the 
United States had been impaired by legislation. On the 
other side, Buchanan claimed that the iron manufactures 
of Pennsylvania had sunk to ruin under a low tarifl:' and 
foreign competition. In the year 1819 sixteen thousand, 
two hundred and forty-one tons of foreign hammered iron 
had been imported; in 1822 the quantity imported had 
increased to twenty-six thousand, five hundred and eight 
tons. But Pennsylvania did not desire to exclude the 
foreio^n iron. He cited the recommendation of the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in his report that iron, paper, glass, 
and lead could bear additional duties.^ Mallary delivered 
an able and very elaborate speech, reviewing 
the whole question from the stand-point of 
protection. He gave an epitome of industrial history and 
policy in Europe from the time of the Middle Ages.^ In 
the discussion of the 3d of March, Breck, of Pennsylvania, 
opposing the view taken by his colleagues, favored the 
bringing at cheaper rates of raw material, iron included. 
One of these colleagues, Stewart, moved for an additional 
duty of twenty-five cents a year on items of iron mentioned 
in the bill, and to extend the time three years. This propo- 
sition was defeated.^ Then, by the decisive vote of fifty- 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1708. 

2 Ibid., p. 1710. » Ibid., pp. 1712-1731. 

^ Ibid., p. 1738. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 101 

four to eighty-five, Fuller's motion to strike out the iron 
duty was negatived.^ 

Chairman Tod, who was not so competent a man to con- 
duct such a business as Baldwin had been in 1820, became 
alarmed for the safety of the measure, and 

, , , , . f ,^ • • The protection 

moved an alteration oi the mmimum on leader alarmed 
woollen cloths from eighty to forty cents. This ^^^ ^'^"^ '^'•^'^'^'^'^ "^ 

. . his measure. 

movement struck strong friends of the bill, 
like Martindale and Tracy, with surprise,^ and developed 
differences in the protection ranks, which provoked Hamil- 
ton, of South Carolina, to say that he did not see why, 
according to the principle of equivalents adopted by the 
supporters of the measure, the Northern and Western 
agriculturists were not entitled in the general distribution 
of the booty to their golden fleece. But Tod was sustained 
by Buchanan and others, and his motion was successful.^ 
Tod's amendment laying a duty on pig-iron was rejected 
by a vote of seventy-nine to one hundred and eleven. 

On the 6th and 7th of March the debate was chiefly on 
a motion by Forsyth to strike out the third 

. '' . March 6, 7. 

section, which added the amount of foreign 
bounties to the duties. This motion was advocated by 
Forsyth, Randolph, P. P. Barbour, Fuller, Bartlett, lioss, 
Mercer, Livermore, Cambreleng, Stevenson, and Foot, of 
Connecticut, and opposed by Clay, Stewart, and Tod.* 
The amendments proposed by the last two were lost, and 
the original motion prevailed by a large majority.^ The 
debate in favor of the proposition turned on the terms of 
the British treaty, which provided that articles imported 
into this country should not have a higher dut}^ imposed 
than those imported from other countries. After an inter- 
val of a week the House resumed consideration of the bill 
and rejected a movement to increase the duty on lead in 
pigs, bars, or sheets from two to three cents.® Four days 



* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1738. 

» Ibid., p. 1741. ' Ibid., p. 1750. * Ibid., pp. 1756-1758j 

8 Ibid., p. 1761. The vote was 114 to 66. « Ibid., p. 1792. 



102 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

later the Committee on Agriculture, which had been in- 
structed to report the efiect of the pending bill on agricul- 
tural interests, submitted the result of their inquiries.' 
The report was based on the advantage of a home market, 
which it was claimed would be afforded bj the bill. It was 
insisted that the duties " should embrace every raw ma- 
terial found or produced with ease in the United States." 
It was declared that the foreign market for the fruits of 
our soil depended but little on the sale of foreign goods in 
this country. As to the amount of duty, it was said that 
it must always depend upon a variety of considerations 
which need not be stated ; it must be sufficient to secure 
the exclusive and constant demand of our raw materials 
competent to build up and protect manufacturing establish- 
ments in being, and which with reasonable encouragement 
would present a constant demand for these raw materials. 
The committee declined to specify articles, but referred to 
the tariff bill for an enumeration.^ 

Tallow on March 19 and hemp on the 20th and 23d of 

March were considered at some length. The debate on the 

latter subject arose upon Cambreleng's motion 

March 19, 20. '' ^ ^ 

to reduce the proposed duty from two cents to 
one and one-half cents. Reed, of Massachusetts, claimed 
that the additional fourteen dollars and eighty cents per 
ton to the existing duty of thirty dollars would destroy 
foreign commerce, increasing the amount of duty paid 
from seventy-two thousand dollars to one hundred and 
seven thousand, five hundred and twenty dollars.^ The 
debate was continued by Webster, Mercer, P. P. Barbour, 
Foot, of Connecticut, Cambreleng, and McKim in favor, 
and Buchanan, Tod, and Clay against the proposition and 
in favor of the provisions of the bill.* 

On the 24th of March Clay moved to insert a duty of 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1857. 
*Ibid., p. 1859. 

' This was upon an estimate that every one hundred tons of ship- 
ping required four tons of hemp. — Ibid., pp. 1882-1887. 
* Ibid., p. 1888. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828, 103 

ten cents a gallon on molasses, — a motion advocated by Mm 
in a speech, the tendency of which was to pro- 

March 24 

mote the manufacture of Western whiskey at 
the expense of Eastern rum. "Every gallon of spirits 
distilled from foreign molasses and consumed An ow ques- 
within the country," he said, " takes the place *^°'*- 
of a gallon of spirits distilled from domestic produce." His 
principle of protection was defined to be : Ist, the manu- 
facture of our own materials; 2d, the manufacture of 
foreign raw materials which do not come into competition 
with any that are native ; 3d, but least of all, those which 
compete with our own produce. The House agreed to 
the duty as proposed.^ 

After much discussion and by a close vote a motion 
of Webster's was agreed to, the purport of which was 
to allow a drawback upon imported silks and nankeens 
on re-exportation, with safeguards on frauds against the 
revenue.* The items in the bill were often adopted by 
very close votes, following extended debate, and a num- 
ber of amendments desired by the protectionists were 
not incorporated. The case of glass is in point. The 
duties on cut glass, two and three cents, after a division 
M'^ere retained by a single vote.^ And the same fate be- 
fell the movement of Tod to increase the duty on plain 
glass. 

Upon Isacks's motion to strike out the section containing 
the cotton minimum of thirty-five cents per square yard 
P. P. Barbour delivered an elaborate general 

• n. ' ^ • -, The cotton 

speech on the subject oi the tariii, in wnicn mininum of 
all of his loo-ic, culture, and classicism ap- tmrty-flve cente 

<^ ' ' '■ per square yard. 

peared.^ If the measure could be defended as 
a revenue bill he declared that he could not vote for it, 
because no increase of revenue was needed. He corrected 
a misapprehension as to a large part of the debt being due 
in the years 1826, 1827, 1828. Payment was simply op- 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 1904. 

* Ibid., pp. 1904-1912. ^ Ibid., p. 1913. * Ibid., pp. 1916-1945. 



104 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

tional. With the exception of the bank debt and the 
three per cent, stock, the existing revenue would be com- 
petent to redeem the whole debt in 1835, a period yet 
distant eleven years. He seemed to demonstrate that the 
bill violated the spirit of the Constitution. The reasoning 
on another branch of the subject was as follows : " The 
manufacturers ask for protection ; a given sum is proposed 
as a duty; the commercial interest as well as the agricul- 
tural allege that the profit of the manufacturer is already 
larger than theirs : who amongst us can tell what is the 
profit of either ? And if, we cannot, how can we tell 
whether protection is needed? Again, the wool-grower 
asks a protective duty to his wool ; the manufacturer ex- 
claims that the rate proposed will prostrate his manufac- 
ture : what data have we upon which to decide between 
them ?" He aflirmed that the measure would not increase 
the public wealth, and therefore it was utterly impossible 
that it could increase the national industry. The manu- 
facturing capitalist increased his profits, and laborers about 
secured an amount equal to their maintenance. He ex- 
amined what he called " the pretension" that the bill would 
furnish a better and more steady market to the agricul- 
turist, and made an extensive survey of modern European 
nations, besides allusions here and there to the practice of 
antiquity. 

Clay replied to Barbour on the 30th and 31st of March.' 
He began with more than usual impressiveness with a 
March 30 31 hypothetical invocation. He defined the two 
Clay replies to sides to the questiou and respected the motives 
of both. He then reviewed in an eloquent 
strain the state of the country, after which review he thus 
assigned the cause: "It is to be found in the fact that 
during almost the whole existence of this government we 
have shaped our industry, our navigation, and our com- 
merce in reference to an extraordinary war in Europe and 
to foreign markets which no longer exist ; in the fact that 

1 Gales and Seaton's Annals, pp. 1961-2001. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 105 

we have depended too much upon foreign sources of supply 
and excited too little the native; in the fact that whilst 
we have cultivated with assiduous care our foreign resources, 
we have suffered those at home to wither, in a state of 
neglect and abandonment." He said that a nation was 
most prosperous when there was a gradual and untempting 
addition to the aggregate of its circulating medium. It 
was most desirable that there should be both a home and 
a foreign market. But he had not a doubt that the home 
market was "first in order and paramount in importance." 
The object of the bill was to create this home market, and 
to lay the foundations of a genuine American policy. We 
were forbidden, he assumed, to rely on the foreign market 
both by its inability to supply us — our power of production 
increasing four times greater than the power of those 
nations for consumption — and by the policy which rejected 
our great staples for their own. He stated the total amount 
of our exports of domestic produce for the year ending the 
30th of September, 1796, and estimating the increase ac- 
cording to the ratio of the increase of population, — that is, 
at four per cent, per annum, — he said that the amount of 
exports on the 30th of September, 1823, ought to have 
been eighty-five million, four hundred and twenty thousand, 
eight hundred and sixty-one dollars. But it was, in fact, 
only forty-seven million, one hundred and fifty-five thousand, 
four hundred and eight dollars. Cotton alone had advanced, 
but its actual value had diminished considerably. He then 
recapitulated the argument that less than one-fifth of the 
whole population of the United States produced in 1823 
nearly two-thirds of the exports, and argued that something 
must be done for the other four-fifths by the government. 
" It is in vain," he said, " to tantalize us with the greater 
cheapness of foreign fabrics. There must be an ability to 
purchase." He presented this very awkward statement of 
a predicament : " Even if it were true that the American 
manufacturer would supply consumption at dearer rates, it 
is better to have his fabrics than the unattainable foreign 
fabrics ; for it is better to be ill supplied than not supplied 



106 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

at all."^ Mr. Clay proceeded: "The superiority of the 
home market results, 1st, from its steadiness and compara- 
tive certainty at all times ; 2d, from the creation of recip- 
rocal interests; 3d, from its greater security; and, lastly, 
from an ultimate and not distant augmentation of con- 
sumption, and consequently of comfort, from increased 
quantity and reduced prices." He claimed that the estab- 
lishment of manufactures would communicate cheerfulness 
to the dispirited farming interest. He pointed to the ex- 
ample of Great Britain, who protected most her industry, 
and therefore had the greatest wealth. As against the 
Southern position he said that in a conflict between the 
interests of the smaller and those of the larger portion of 
the people, the former should yield. If there were any 
diminution of cotton exports it would probably be only " a 
little upwards of five per cent. In the end we should be in- 
demnified by the new application of our industry producing 
new objects of exportation, and they of much greater value 
than in the raw state." The probability was that our foreign 
tonnage would be increased. He thought that for some 
years, under the operations of the bill, the revenue would 
be increased considerably. His optimism was sublime. 
In one passage Mr. Clay seemed to get a foreglimpse of 
English free trade, for he remarked : " The object of pro- 

' The context makes ^Ir. Clay's meaning perfectly clear, and from his 
stand-point the argument is irresistible. It is this : For economic pur- 
poses, including revenue for the support of government, the people of 
the United States are one. The wars in Europe having closed and left 
an insufficient market there for American produce except cotton, which 
was reduced in price, a market must be created in this country. Now, 
the state of things did not affect the South, because that section could 
export cotton and pay for all it wanted ; but the Northern States were 
not so fortunate in their situation, and had to be fostered by the action 
of the government of the United States. This fostering agency was 
nothing more nor less than legislation which forced the trade of the more 
prosperous section to the less prosperous one, and if, in this creation of 
a home market, the Southern planter lost money while the Northern 
capitalist gained, Mr. Clay and his friends contended that it was right 
because it upheld a national policy ; and the South was informed that 
it should yield, because it was the smaller section. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 107 

tection is the establishment and perfection of the arts. In 
England it has accomplished its purpose, fulfilled its end. 
... It is upon this very ground that many 
of the writers recommend an abandonment of \^_^ A^^bre- 
the prohibitory system." And yet he denied glimpse of Eng- 
that England was aboyit to abandon protection. 
He quoted from Napoleon, whom he called " the master- 
spirit of the age," to show the superiority of agriculture 
and manufactures to foreign commerce. Even the South 
would gain by the extended consumption of its great 
staple. He concluded as fervidly as he had begun.* This 
was the ablest of Mr. Clay's reported speeches which had 
been delivered on the subject of the tarifi' up to that time. 
Mr. Webster, who almost immediately followed Speaker 
Clay, dissented entirely from his views and from the picture 
of distress in the country which he drew. " In 

Webster. 

respect to the New England States," he said, 
" with the condition of which I am, of course, most ac- 
quainted, the present appears to be a period of very general 
prosperity : not, indeed, a time for great profits and sudden 
acquisitions, not a day of extraordinary activity and suc- 
cessful speculation. There is, no doubt, a considerable 
depression of prices, and in some degree a stagnation of 
business. . . . The means of subsistence are abundant; and 
at the very moment when the miserable condition of the 
country is asserted, it is admitted that the wages of labor 
are high in comparison with those of any other countr3^" 
He noticed the injustice of Clay's mode of calculating the 
increase in exportation. " There never was 

^{g corrects 

any reason," he asserted, " to expect that the ciay on the 
increase of our exports of agricultural products increase of 

•"^ . y '- exjwrtation. 

would keep pace with the increase of our pop- 
ulation." But the figures cited by him showed that in the 
thirty-three years between 1790 and 1823 these exports had 
grown from $27,716,152 to $55,863,491. " The year 1819 
was a year of numerous failures and very considerable dis- 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals of Eighteenth Congress, pp. 2026-2068, 



103 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

tress, and would have furnished far better grounds than 
exist at present for that gloomy representation of our con- 
dition which had been presented. . . . Irredeemable paper 
was the most prominent and deplorable cause of whatever 
pressure still exists." Mr. Webster, in order to find causes 
for the stagnation in business and industry did not seek for 
them beyond the commonly assigned ones of the close of 
the great European wars and the inflation of the currency. 
He observed, in regard to the latter and the effects it pro- 
duced upon different portions of the country, that " they 
find the shock lightest who take it soonest." He thought 
that there could be no such thing as payment of debts by 
legislation. No government, in his opinion, could prevent 
depression in business or relieve the people from its effect. 
Webster declared that he, too, was in favor of protecting 
domestic industry, but his idea was that " the employments 
of agriculture, commerce, and navigation were only branches 
of the same industry." He favored some of the propo- 
sitions of the bill, but to others he had great objections. 
Freedom of He objected to the mode in which the measure 
trade the gen- .^^s Considered. " Freedom of trade," he said, 

eral principle; , . . , , . . , 

restriction the was the general principle, and restriction the 
exception. exception." He cited Lord Liverpool and 

others to show that England had risen in spite of the 
restrictive system. He combated the opinion that this 
country should not export large quantities of gold and 
silver. There are no shallower resources, he contended, 
To accumulate ^^^^^ thosc political and commercial writers 
the precious who represent it to be the only true and gain- 

metals not the r- ^ -i o , i , , i 

only true and 1^1 6nd ot commcrcc to accumuIatc the precious 
gainful end of mctals. Men do not buy wheat because they 

commerce. i i i i i 

have money, but because they want bread. 
An accumulation of specie often shows a want of employ- 
ment for capital. Where there are two coin standards, 
the cheapest circulates and the other is exported ; and from 
this difference in the value of silver arises wholly or in 
great measure the apparent difference which exists in ex- 
change. 



•I. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 109 

As to the necessity for protection, the question was not 
whether we would lay, but whether we would augment 
duties. Iron and hemp, he averred, already paid a hand- 
some duty. Much had been done for manufactures, and it 
might be presumed that enough had been done, unless it 
should be shown by facts and considerations applicable to 
each article that there was necessity for doing more. He 
was guarded in expression as to further protection for 
woollens, but thought " it would be, perhaps, prudent to 
abstain from the experiment." He considered that cotton 
manufactures had not only reached, but had passed the 
point of competition. He was willing to accord a higher 
protection to glass. The duty on hemp was already too 
high. Altogether, he thought that the shipping interests 
were injured by the bill. 

This speech was in some respects more satisfactory than 
any previous effort on that side in the debate of 1824. 
Perhaps as a whole it was not superior to Cambreleng's or 
Barbour's. Clay had been eloquent; there was not a rhe- 
torical passage in Webster's reply. 

The fault of greatest prominence in the anti-protection 
argument, a fault observable especially in Southern speakers, 
was the tendency to depreciate manufactures ^^^^^ ^ 
as a necessity for this country. Instead of anti-protecuon 
arguing exclusively against government inter- *''^"°^*^"^- 
ference, many of the low-tariff men insisted that it was 
folly to endeavor to establish manufactures at all; that 
they could never compete with those of England.* One 
of the most noticeable traits of the protection- -yv^ong infer- 
ist debaters was their disposition to quote as enccs of tne 

, . . ,1 • 1 j^ TT protectionists. 

sustaining their ground passages irom Ham- 
ilton, Jefferson, Monroe, and others which did not bear 
out the construction placed upon them.^ 

Isacks's amendment, the effect of which would have been 
to reduce the minimum of cotton goods to twenty-five 

^ Galea and Seaton's Annals, p. 2111, and other places. 
' Ibid., p. 2144, and others. 



110 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

from thirty-five cents, was rejected on April 3 by a vote of 
seventy-two to ninety-six.' One of the chief difficulties 

Tod had to contend with was the opposition to 
Relectton of Certain features of the bill by those who could 
isacks's amend- \^q relied upon, as Isacks, to support other 

features. Clark, of New York, proposed to 
reduce the rate, as scheduled in the bill, on bar iron from 
one dollar and twelve cents to ninety cents per hundred- 
weight. " I vote," he explained, " for an increase of duty 
on woollen goods, because I believe it will make a market 
for wool ; on molasses, because, as the importation of it is 
diminished, its place will be supplied with grain for dis- 
tillation. But when you propose a tax on this article, 
which will bear so heavily upon the farmer and do so much 
to empty his pockets, I shall use my feeble efforts against 
it." Tod confessed, in reply, that the reasons given " struck 
him with a chill." ^ Clark's motion prevailed.^ 

"Webster's substitute for the schedule of duties on wine 
was adopted. There was a proviso which limited the 
amount of duty not to exceed one dollar in any case. 
Specific duties, ranging from thirty cents on Malaga to 
seventy cents on Madeira, were imposed on various manu- 
factures ; and ad valorem duties of fifty per cent, when in 
bottles or cases; forty cents, when otherwise imported, on 
other wines. Clay's proposition for three cents per pound 
on copper in sheets and bottoms was negatived, as were 
several other motions. But Conner was able, after a second 
count of the vote, to secure a reduction for the woollens 
minimum from eighty to forty cents.* The bill was re- 
ported to the House on this day.' 

On the following day the House concurred in the woollens 
amendment of the committee of the whole by a vote of 



* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2171. 

»Ibid., pp. 2174-2176. Mr. Tod quarrelled impartially with friend 
and foe. At page 2220 an instance is recorded of his irritability and 
lack of capacity. 

" By a vote of 99 to 90.— Ibid., p. 2209. 

* Ibid., p. 2210. 6 Ibid., p. 2211. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. \\\ 

one hundred and one to ninety-nine.' The nays were 
chiefly Western and Northern. This action was recon- 
sidered and reversed the next day. Western members 
were warned by Poinsett and other low-tariff 

, , *' , . Fate of the 

men that there was danger to their section wooiiens 
from protection.^ Poinsett said, in reply to »^'^"'^™e°t- 
Clay, that " the state of the seaport towns of France dur- 
ing the prohibitory system of Napoleon was not more de- 
plorable than that of the manufacturing establishments."^ 
The amendment of the committee of the whole, establish- 
ing a scale of advance in duties from twenty-five to fifty per 
cent, ad valorem, was concurred in. 

On the 9th of April a prolonged discussion occurred over 
the proposed reduction of bar-iron. Buchanan, Udree, 
Brown, and Stewart opposed, and Reed, Ran- 
dolph, Tucker, McDufiie, Mercer, Cambreleng, ^p"^^- 

^ ' ' . ' ' O' Bar-iron. 

Webster, and Marvin supported the amendment Pennsylvania 
to reduce the duty to ninety cents. It was a ^^^^^^"^ ^^" 
contest in large part between the manufactur- 
ing interests of Pennsylvania and the ship-building and 
commercial interests of New England, backed by the agri- 
cultural South. Stewart, of Pennsylvania, denounced " the 
iniquitous tariff of 1816, which increased the duties upon 
sugar, etc., near one hundred per cent, and reduced the 
duties upon iron from thirty-two per cent, to nine dollars 
per ton. This," he declared, "gave the death-blow to 
American manufactures." He insisted that if the duty was 
increased on an imported article the revenue must of neces- 
sity be increased in the same proportion.* The speech of 
Buchanan had contained no such fallacious statement aa 
this. Indeed, he had made out a very strong case in favor 
of the additional burdens proposed upon both hemp and 
iron.* But the reduction was agreed to by a larger vote 
than in committee, — one hundred and twenty to eighty- 

' Gales and Seaton's Annals, pp. 2236, 2255-2257. The first vote was 
one hundred to ninety-five. 
» Ibid., p. 2238. » Ibid., p. 2241. 

* Ibid., p. 2273. * Ibid., p. 2259. 



112 A HISTORY OF TEE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

five.^ The amendment proposing to strike out the pro- 
vision adding the amount of bounty or premium to the 
duty prevailed by a very large majority.'^ The Southerners, 
who imported or drank imported wines to a great extent, 
were unsuccessful in efforts to reduce the proposed duties 
on the article. The minimum was increased on woollens, 
after June 30, 1826, to thirty-seven and a half cents, by a 
vote of one hundred and three to seventy-seven.^ A prop- 
osition to strike out bolt- or bar-iron not manufactured in 
whole or part by rolling was rejected. On the following 
day — April 13 — an effort was made to increase the duty to 
one dollar.* Isacks was again defeated in his cotton mini- 
mum proposition.* 

The committee of the whole had accepted Buchanan's 
compromise of four and a half cents the square yard on 
cotton bagging. In the House, on April 13, Tod proposed 
to make the duty five and a half cents after June 30, 1825, 
and succeeded by the Speaker's casting vote in securing 
that duty.^ Several Southern members voted in the afiirma- 
tive, among whom were Mitchell, of Maryland, Johnston, of 
Virginia, and Vance, of North Carolina. Again, on Ran- 
dolph's motion to reduce the duty on brown sugar to two 
and . a half cents per pound, a number of Southerners 
Southern votcd with the protectionists, in opposition, 

products. however, this time, to a lower duty on a South- 

ern product, and not, as before, in favor of a higher duty 
to encourage a Southern manufacture. Webster was also 
among the nays.^ Dilatory motions during several days 
had failed, when the House, on the 14th of April, ordered 
the bill to a third reading by the close vote of one hundred 
and five to one hundred and three.* 

On the final passage in the House there was extended 

* Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2287. 

* Ibid., p. 2292. The vote was one hundred and forty-four to fifty- 
three. « Ibid., p. 2310. 

* Ibid., pp. 2311, 2338. This proposition contemplated an increase 
after June 30, 1825. ^ Ibid., p. 2312. 

« Ibid., pp. 2315, 2327. » Ibid., p. 2332. « Ibid., p. 2342. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 113 

debate. John Randolph said, " I do not stop here to argue 
about the constitutionality of this bill ; I consider the Con- 
stitution a dead letter." He declared that he 
had no faith in the Constitution, and quoted drtate^^or the 
Lord Chatham's expression that the sword final passage of 
would find its way to the vitals of the British 
constitution. "A fig," said Randolph, "for the Constitu- 
tion." ' He was emphatic in declaring, on the part of the 
South, non-intercourse with " the region of country which 
attempts to cram this bill down our throats." He valued 
the Union " as the means of preserving the liberty and 
happiness of the people." He drew a picture of the mer- 
chants and manufacturers of Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire repelling the bill, whilst men in hunting-shirts 
with deer-skin leggings and moccasins on their feet were 
demanding manufactures, — " men with rifles on their shoul- 
ders and long knives in their belts, seeking in the forests to 
lay in their next winter's supply of bear-meat."^ Hol- 
combe spoke at length for the original bill, and 
was followed on the 16th of April by McDuffie ^'^ 
in opposition. The latter maintained that there should be 
a due proportion between manufactures, commerce, and 
agriculture.^ Conceding that there might be interference 
by the government with the course of industry, he thought 
that it should be confined within narrow and well-defined 
limits. The protection sought should be only temporary, 
and was only justified by the inability of existing manu- 
factures to compete with their foreign rivals.* In giving 
his endorsement to the tariff of 1816 he said, " I distinctly 
recognize the principle that wherever large investments of 
capital have been made in consequence of a state of things 
produced by the necessary acts of the government itself, 
the government is under the moral obligation to extend to 
the interests thus created a reasonable protection." But 
this reasonable protection, he argued, could not be an ex- 



» Gales and Peaton's Annals, p. 2361. "^ Ihid., p. 2370. 

3 Ibid., p. 2402. * Ibid., p. 2404. 

8 



114 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

emption from the general distress pervading the entire 
community, but merely a mitigation from the shock which 
manufacturing establishments must experience in passing 
from a state of general war to one of general peace.^ Some 
of the distress complained of in the Middle and Western 
States was relative and in a great degree imaginary. 
" What ! a country that doubles in ten years its population, 
calling upon the government to relieve it from distress by 
creating new employments." He held up his favorite the- 
ory, a system of internal improvements, as more important 
to the West " than all the tarifis that could be passed in 
fifty years." ^ He claimed that it was obvious that cotton 
and woollen were the only manufactures of importance 
which could be protected consistently with the general in- 
terests of the country. Hamilton was cited as having 
favored free importation of unmanufactured wool. Com- 
bination of interests on the principle of compromise he 
opposed strenuously, and he showed that there was an in- 
consistency in protection arguments. " They tell us," he 
said, " in one breath that their object is to relieve the coun- 
try from its dependence on foreign commerce, and in the 
next that our foreign commerce will be increased." ^ He 
held that " although the manufacturing interest made the 
most prominent figure in this scheme of protection, the 
question was no longer between the manufacturing and 
agricultural interests, but between all those who produced 
more than they consumed of the articles subject to duty 
and those who purchased that surplus production."* Inci- 
dentally, McDufiie exclaimed, " God forbid that the South- 
ern portion of our Union should be a separate confederacy I" 
Further along in his remarks he declared that " it would 
be some consolation" if he " could believe that the heavy 
impositions," which he thought " must operate so oppres- 
sively" upon the South, "would produce an equivalent 
benefit to other portions of the Union." * 



^ Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2406. '^ Ibid., p. 2411. 

» Ibid., p. 2419. * Ibid., p. 2424. ^ Ibid., p. 2426. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 115 

In this closing debate Trimble, who called for the pre- 
vious question, observed that the discussion had been 
marked with more temperance than any sim- ^he discussioa 
ilar one on former occasions. The call was temperate. 
sustained by the same close voting that had marked every 
stage of this bill. The vote was one hundred and one to 
ninety-eight. After another count, not materially different, 
which had been demanded by Randolph, Webster moved 
that the bill lie on the table. This motion was rejected by 
ninety-eight to one hundred and ten,^ and the previous 
question was ordered by a vote of one hundred and ten to 
ninety-seven. The bill then passed the House The bui passes 
by one hundred and seven to one hundred and the House. 
two, and was sent to the Senate. ^ The yeas were Adams, 
Alexander (Tennessee), Allison, Barber (Connecticut), Bart- 
ley, Beecher, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Buck, Buckner, 
Cady, Campbell (Ohio), Cassedy, Clark, Collins, Condict, 
Cook, Crafts, Craig, Durfee, Dvvight, Eaton, Eddy, Edwards 
(Pennsylvania), Ellis, Farrelly, Findlay, Forward, Garrison, 
Gazlay, Harris, Hayden, Hemphill, Henry, Herkimer, Hol- 
combe, Houston, Jenkins, Johnson (Virginia), J. T. John- 
soil, F. Johnson, Kidder, Kremer, Lawrence, Letcher, Little, 
Mc Arthur, McKean, McKim, McLane (Delaware), McLean 
(Ohio), Mallary, Markley, Martindale, Marvin, Matlack, 
Matson, Metcalfe, Miller, Mitchell (Pennsylvania), Mitchell 
(Maryland), Moore (Kentucky), Morgan, Patterson (Penn- 
sylvania), Patterson (Ohio), Plumer (Pennsylvania), Prince, 
Rich, Richards, Rogers, Rose, Ross, Scott, Sharpe, Sloane, 
Sterling, Stewart, Stoddard, Storrs, Strong, Swan, Taylor, 
Ten Eyck, Test, Thompson (Kentucky), Tod, Tomlinson, 
Tracy, Trimble, Tyson, Udree, Vance (Ohio), Van Rens- 
selaer, Van Wyck, Vinton, Wayne, Whitman, Whittlesey, 
White, Wickliffe, James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson 
(Ohio), Wood, Woods, Wright. The negative vote was as 
follows: Abbot, Alexander (Virginia), Allen (Massachu- 



' Gales and Seaton's Annals, p. 2427. 

* Ibid., pp. 2427, 2429 ; House Journal, 428. 



116 A HISTORY OF THE ' SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

setts), Allen (Tennessee), Archer, Bailies, P. P. Barbour, 
J. S. Barbour, Bartlett, Bassett, Blair, Breck, Brent, Bur- 
leigh, Burton, Cambreleng, Campbell (South Carolina), 
Carter, Cary, Cobb, Cocke, Conner, Crowninshield, Cul- 
peper, Cushraan, Cuthbert, Day, Dvvinnell, Edwards (North 
Carolina), Floyd, Foot (Connecticut), Foote (New York), 
Forsyth, Frost, Fuller, Garnett, Gatlin, Gist, Govan, Gurley, 
Hall, Hamilton, Harvey, Hay ward, Herrick, Hobart, Hoge- 
boom, Hooks, Isacks, Kent, Lathrop, Lee, Leftwich, Lin- 
coln, Litchfield, Livermore, Livingston, Locke, Long, Long- 
fellow, McCoy, McDuffie, McKee, Mangum, Mercer, Moore 
(Alabama), Neale, IsTelson, Newton, O'Brien, Owen, Plum 
(New Hampshire), Poinsett, Randolph, Rankin, Reed, Rey- 
nolds, Rives, Saunders, Sandford, Sibley, Arthur Smith, 
Alexander Smyth, William Smith, Spaight, Spence, Stan- 
defer, A. Stevenson, J. Stephenson, Taliaferro, Tattnall, 
Thompson (Georgia), Tucker (Virginia), Tucker (South 
Carolina), Vance (North Carolina), Warfield, "Webster, 
"Whipple, "Williams (New York), "Williams (Virginia), "Wil- 
liams (North Carolina), "Wilson (South Carolina). 

The tarift' bill was laid before the Senate on the 19th of 
April 19. April, and on the following day a debate oc- 

in the Senate, currcd ou its reference, — whether to the Com- 
mittee on Manufactures or the Committee on Finance. It 
was decided by a close vote against the latter, and the bill 
was then referred to the former committee. On the 24th 
of the same month the measure was reported with amend- 
ments and a comparative statement of differences between 
the existing and the proposed tariff. ^ It was considered 
April 28. ^^^^ various amendments were agreed to on the 

Amendments. 28th of April. Mills's motiou to strike out the 
duty on unmanufactured iron was sustained by Holmes and 
Lloyd, and prevailed by a vote of twenty-four to twenty- 
three. ^ On the succeeding day, Lloyd, of Massachusetts, 
moved to strike out the hemp duty, which motion was 



* Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, pp. 524, 530, 569. 
' Ibid., p. 583-591. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 117 

favored by several speakers and opposed by Johnson, of 
Kentucky. Van Buren, who had voted with the iron men 
the previous day, antagonized the motion, but was in favor 
of reducing the duty " to an amount which would be just 
and politic." The motion was successful by a vote of 
twenty-four to twenty-three. The mercantile 
interest of the East voted with the planting ^™^' 
interest against the Western and Middle States and a part 
of the Eastern. ^ 

Cotton bagging caused an extended debate on the 30th 
of April, on Kelly's motion to strike out the highest or in- 
creased duty on this article.^ Hayne showed April so. 
the ditference in principle between the tariff of cotton bagging. 
1816 and the one proposed : the former placed the highest 
duty on certain articles first and gradually lowered, while 
the bill under consideration was progressive. The govern- 
ment was incapable from its elevation of assuming control 
of individual employments. Hayne, like the speakers in 
the House, contended that the fact that the imports exceed 
the exports was always to be accepted as a prosperous state 
of our commerce. But in a series of years the whole 
amount of imports and exports must balance each other. 
The profits in the various industries, he argued, would be 
equalized by the prices, and these would be regulated by 
an unerring standard common to all pursuits : the interest 
on the capital, and the wages of labor. " If," he said^ 
" the act of 1816 had saved the cotton factories and the 
want of protection had destroyed the woollen, then the fail- 
ures would have taken place exclusively among the latter. 
But what was the fact ? Why, four-fifths of all the manu- 
factories which failed in New England were of coarse cotton 
goods," which were protected.^ The argument throughout, 
too long for statement here, was not only ingenious, but 
abounded in facts illustrating the subject. As to the con- 

' Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, pp. 595-615. 
"^ That above four and a half cents the square yard after June 30, 
1825. The speech is found at p. 618 of the Annals. 
• Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, p. 634. 



118 A HISTORY OF THE. SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Btitutionality of the measure, he insisted that " no power 
can be exercised by Congress which is not expressly granted 
or which is not clearly incident to such a grant." ^ The 
claim that encouragement for manufactures was needed was 
denied. He had himself examined twenty or thirty manu- 
facturing establishments and found evidences of prosperity. 
The motion to strike out the five and a half cents duty on 
cotton bagging was carried after further debate.^ It was 
strenuously resisted by Kentucky. 

The discussion on May 1, 3, 4, and 5 is in part merely 
indicated in the reports. Elliott, of Georgia, moved to 

strike out the proviso which established a mini- 
May 1-5. J 1 1 • 11 -I 

mum upon the duties on cotton cloths and 
cotton twist, yarn or thread were to be calculated.^ He 
showed that the bill affected the South, which produced 
more than four-sixths of the domestic exports, by both 
diminishing the planters' receipts and increasing their ex- 
penditures,* John Taylor, of Caroline, reviewed the projects 
which he said had "heretofore promised national blessings 
and inflicted national calamities." These were the conver- 
sion of a part of the national currency soon after the Revo- 
lution ; the assumption of the State debts ; national banking ; 
the tariff; the pension law.** He spoke of the protected 
manufacturers as "a pecuniary aristocracy," and of the bill 
as " a bill of bargains to enrich" them. 

On the other side Dickerson, of New Jersey, thus summed 
up the argument for the measure : " So that under the pres- 
ent state of things the grain-growing States, consisting of 
at least two-thirds of the population of the Union, are 
compelled to take of European manufacturers to the amount 
of twelve millions of dollars ; that six or seven States may 
have the advantage of sending remittances in payment of 
those manufactures and selling their bills for the same at an 
extravagant advance ; in consequence of which the wealth 



* Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, p. 648. 
2 Ibid., p. 652. » Ibid., p. 662. 

♦Ibid., p. 672. 6 Ibid., p. 676. 



THE TARIFF — 1S20-1828. 119 

of the grain-growing States is flowing in a constant stream 
to the States producing rice, cotton, and tobacco." ^ This 
speech was a strong ad capiandum efibrt to band together 
the Middle and Western States against the South and the 
importing interest. A special appeal was also made to " the 
laboring classes." Motions by Hayne and Eaton to reduce 
the minimum on cotton goods were lost, but Holmes's 
motion to reduce from thirty-five to thirty was successful.'' 
By one majority the motion of Elliott, above referred to, 
was negatived.' The additional duty of fifteen per cent, 
on distilled spirits was stricken out on a New Englander's 
motion. 

The debate on the 6th of May was first on a proposition 
to strike out the clause imposing a duty on unmanufactured 
wool. As the result of the consideration the 
following decisions were reached : Unmanufac- Reduction of 
tured wool was reduced to thirty per cent, ad unmanufac 

mi 1 • 1 1 11' tured wool. 

valorem. ihe highest duty on wool, thirt}"- 
seven and a half per cent, ad valorem, was stricken 'out.* 
The next day Rufus King proposed to make the duty on 
worsted stuifs and blankets only twenty-five per centum. 
His colleague, Van Buren, voted " nay." On all these votes 
Benton favored " the American policy." The votes resulted, 
— on the former, ayes twenty-seven, noes twenty ; on the 
latter, yeas twenty- four, nays twenty-three.* The Senate 
placed various cheap cotton manufactures, as duck, osna- 
burg, etc., at fifteen per cent. It also decided that woollen 
goods not exceeding in value thirty-three and a third cents 
the square yard should be subject to a duty not higher than 
twenty-five per cent, ad valorem.^ By decisive majorities 
scythes, cutting knives, shovels, etc., were changed from 
specific to ad valorem duties.'^ The proposition of Hayne to 
substitute an ad valorem for a pound duty on books was car- 
ried on the 8th of May by a small majority, and by a smaller 

^ Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, p. 697. 
' Ibid., p. 701. ' Ibid;, p. 702. 

* Ibid., pp. 70&-708. *> Ibid., p. 711. 

« Ibid., p. 714. » Ibid., p. 718. 



120 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

fixed at twenty-five per centum.^ The Senate refused to 
strike out the proposed duty on wheat, w^heat flour, and 
potatoes. The bill was reported on the 10th 
of May with several amendments, most of the 
important of which were concurred in on the following day.'' 
Hemp remained as before, at thirty-five dollars per ton. 
The Senate also disagreed to the vote by which the duty on 
iron was stricken out. The vote was twenty-one to twenty- 
six on the amendment.^ There was a large majority for 
concurrence in the amendment striking out the proposed 
additional duty on spirits. On motion of Dickerson specific 
duties were added on Latin and Greek books, bound at 
fifteen cents per pound, unbound at thirteen cents. On 
motion of Macon the duty on cotton bagging was stricken 
The bill passes out by a vote of twcnty-five to twenty-two.* 
the Senate. After long spccches by Hayne and Smith, of 
Maryland,^ in opposition to the bill, it passed by the follow- 
ing vote : Yeas, Barton, Bell, Benton, Brown, Chandler, 
D'Wolf, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Findlay, Holmes 
(Maine), Jackson, Johnson (Kentucky), Knight, Lanman, 
Lowrie, Mcllvaine, Noble, Palmer, Ruggles, Seymour, Tal- 
bot, Taylor (Indiana), Thomas, and Van Buren, — twenty- 
five. Nays, Barbour, Branch, Clayton, Elliott, Gaillard, 
Hayne, Holmes (Mississippi), H. Johnston (Louisiana), J. S. 
Johnston (Louisiana), Kelly, King (Alabama), King (New 
York), Lloyd (Massachusetts), Macon, Mills, Parrott, Smith, 
Taylor (Virginia), Van Dyke,Ware, and Williams, — twenty- 
one.^ 

The bill was sent to the House for action upon the amend- 

* Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, p. 720. 

* Ibid., pp. 726, 730. ^ j^j^^ p 731 4 j^jfj^ p 733 

* Ibid., pp. 738-743. Smith said that the increase in duties as pro- 
posed by the House would be four millions and a quarter, and that 
his calculation was "bottomed" on the report of the Register of the 
Treasury. The President had said in his message that an addition 
to the revenue was not wanted. [Indeed, the President said that 
there would be a surplus of nearly nine million dollars on the 1st of 
January. ] 

« Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, p. 743. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. ■ 121 

merits. Here it was referred on the same day to the Com- 
mittee on Manufactures, which reported on the 14th of Maj.^ 
The bill and amendments were considered in 
the committee of the whole on the day subse- ^^ ^ ' ^^' 
quent.^ With a slight addition the Senate amendment for 
fifteen per cent, ad valorem duty on various 

, c> , ,^ 1 Most of the Sen- 

cheap manufactures ot cotton was agreed to. ateamend- 
The Senate amendment for twenty-five per cent. ™^°^^ agreed 
on worsted goods and blankets was also adopted. 
Among other Senate amendments which were accepted by 
the House of Representatives were one relating to silks 
imported from beyond the Cape of Good Hope, one de- 
creasing the minimum of cotton goods, one striking out so 
much of the prospective duty on wool as increased the duty 
by an annual addition of five per cent, from thirty until it 
reached fifty per cent,, and another striking out the duty 
on foreign distilled spirits. The House stood 
by four and a half cents on cotton bagging, but stood by its 
at first gave up the higher duty. But the vote action on cotton 

. bagging. 

was reconsidered, and a prolonged debate fol- 
lowed. By a vote of eighty-two to one hundred and eight 
the clause of the Senate amendment striking out the duty 
was negatived. The result of the final action of the House 
was therefore to strike out five and a half cents and insert 
four and a half cents as the duty. 

The Senate stood out for its amendments, and a confer- 
ence was appointed on the 17th of May.^ A Mayn. 
report was made on the following day, and after conference. 
a prolonged debate was adopted. Cotton bagging was the 
chief point of difterence. In the Senate J. S. Johnston, of 
Louisiana, said that it was a question between the Western 
and the cotton-planting States. Not one item, he aflirmed, 
which had been introduced could benefit the latter. By a 
vote of twenty-one to twenty-five the Senate refused to 
recede from its amendment by which the- duty on cotton 

» Annals of Eighteenth Congress, First Session, pp. 2607, 2620. 
» Ibid., pp. 2622-2629. ' Ibid., pp. 2631, 2635. 



122 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

bagging was stricken out. The other leading point of diffi- 
culty was the article of woollens. The settlement eifected 
May 19. ^^^ May 19 was as follows : The House receded 

Settlement. j^g to woollens, with an amendment ; the Senate, 
as to cotton bagging with a modification of price. The 
effect of the first part of the agreement was to charge all 
manufactures of wool, except flannels and baizes, the actual 
value of which at the place from which imported should not 
exceed thirty-three and a third cents per square yard, with 
a duty of twenty-five per cent, ad valorem. This subjected 
articles having wool as a component part to the same duties 
as other wool manufactures. By the second part of the 
report the specific duty of four and a half cents per square 
yard on cotton bagging was reduced to three and three- 
fourths of a cent.^ It was Senator J. S. Johnston's propo- 
Bition. The House yielded most in the arrangement. The 
Southerners were victorious in the matter of the cotton 
bagging. Many of the amendments adopted by the Senate 
were adverse to the views of the extreme protectionists. 
But the measure as a whole was the most radical step which 
had yet been taken to promote the interests of manufactures 
and of those agricultural products supposed to be dependent 
upon American manufactures. 

At the opening of the Nineteenth Congress the Senate 
Committee on Commerce and Manufactures was divided, a 
Nineteenth committee for each subject having been created 
Congress. after a proposition from a Pennsylvania member 

for a jointure of the subjects of agriculture and manufact- 
ures had been rejected.^ 

A bill was reported on the 10th of January, 1827, in the 
second session of the Nineteenth Congress in the House of 
Representatives " for the alteration of the acts imposing 



' Annals of Eighteenth Congress, p. 2675. The vote on concurring in 
the report was one hundred and twenty-five ayes to sixty-six noes. 
Ibid., p. 2674. 

^ Made by Findlay. Register of Debates, pp. 1-4. From this time the 
Annals of Congress become the Register of Debates. 



THE TARIFF— 1820-1828. 123 

duties on imports."^ This was known familiarly as the 
Woollens Bill. Its provisions were very comprehensively 
stated and its princii^les ino^eniously discussed 

•I nil- n 11 1 ^^27. The 

by Mallary, when the measure came to be con- wooiiens Bin. 
sidered, a week later, in committee of the whole.'* ^^"'^'^'■y lo-n. 
He said that the value of the manufacturing interest waa 
forty million dollars ; of flocks dependent on manufactures, 
twenty million dollars; landed interest devoted to the use 
of the flocks, twenty million dollars more, — in all, eighty 
million dollars was the amount of capital involved in the 
bill before the House. This great capital was in jeopardy. 
It stood on the brink of ruin. The tactics of British man- 
ufacturers, he claimed, gave them great advantage. Four- 
fifths of the goods were sold by agents, who made their 
invoices as they pleased, and there was ample evidence that 
such goods did not pay the amount of duties demanded by 
the tariff". Auction sales were another means of promoting 
their interest at the expense of the American manufacturer. 
Cambreleng replied. He said that when the proper time 
arrived for vindicating the principles of free trade he trusted 
that he should be able to prove that they were of American 
and not of British origin.' Considering the effects of the bill, 
he contended that one of them would be to charge a duty 
of two hundred per cent, on coarse woollen fabrics used by 
laborers, farmers, and mariners. It would be prohibitory. 
It was not a time to tamper with the tariff" when our rev- 
enue was declining.* Woollen manufacturers had specu- 
lated largely and unwisely, having increased the capital 
employed from ten to fifty millions. The next day Bu- 
chanan, saying he could not consent to any tariff* which 
would protect the woollen interest alone, and that the time 
for legislation was too short, moved to discharge the commit- 
tee of the whole from further consideration of the subject, 
and gave notice if that motion failed that he would move 
to lay the bill on the table. McLane, too, like Buchanan, a 



* Eegister of Debates, Nineteenth Congress, p. 732. 

» Ibid., pp. 733-744. " Ibid., p. 744. * Ibid., p. 745. 



124 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

strong protectionist, was not prepared to support the meas- 
ure in its present shape.^ Others joined in criticising the 
bill, which was defended by Mallary, Davis, and Pearce. 
It was justified on the ground that it would prevent fraud 
on the treasury. It was opposed because of its feature of 
total prohibition.^ Mallary, who was, with Davis, of Mas- 
sachusetts, the main stay of the bill in debate, said that the 
effect would not be great except on the class of goods below 
one dollar and fifty cents.^ He estimated that one million 
five hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars might be 
excluded by the bill. He did not give an explicit answer 
to Cambreleng's questions whether he (Mallary) wished to 
have a duty beyond thirty-three per cent, and wh-ether his 
purpose was to revise the tariff or merely to enforce the ex- 
isting duty. Most of the advocates of the bill denied that it 
was prohibitory.* The motion to discharge the committee 
of the whole was negatived, by a vote of seventy-six to one 
hundred and twelve, on the 23d of January. 

January 23. ^j • , -, . • i. i 

Various proposed amendments were rejected. 
As reported, the minima were forty cents, two dollars and 
fifty cents, and four dollars ; but a second minimum at one 
dollar and fifty cents was proposed by Barney, and adopted.® 
The minimum principle was objected to by some of the 
friends of protection.® Stewart defended it and the gen- 
eral principles of the bill with ability.^ Cook's motion 
to recommit, supported by Buchanan and other protection- 
ists, was barely lost when Ingham, of Pennsylvania, also 
moved to recommit. The debate was prosecuted by Archer, 
who raised constitutional objections; by Bryan, who said 
that, although the South had lost one-third in the value 
of an increased crop in the year, it had not called for re- 
lief from the government; by Drayton, who denied that 
there were frauds in the revenue, and who asserted that 



^ Register of Debates, pp. 747-749, 785. ^ Ibid., p. 786. 

8 Ibid., p. 797 et seq. * Ibid., p. 874. 

^ Ibid., p. 891. « Ibid., p. 902. 
» Ibid., pp. 904-911. 



THE TARIFF— 1820-1828. 125 

Britain's policy was more liberal than ours in that she re- 
pealed restrictions against foreign nations in her colonial 
trade, while we continued restrictions on her West India 
imports for eighteen months, and compelled her to revoke 
her policy.^ The motion to recommit was rejected, — one 
hundred and one to one hundred and four. Sev- 
eral hostile amendments were lost.^ On the 8th ^ ^^ 
of February the bill was ordered to be engrossed for its 
third reading. It was then debated with great 
earnestness. On the 10th of February it passed The^'^wooiiens 
the House by a vote of one hundred and six to ^i^* parses the 
ninety-five. The votes on the different stages 
of the measure were all very close.^ 

Buchanan exerted himself greatly against this bill. Ing- 
ham, McLane, and other old protectionists were 

. . • • m 1 Change of posi- 

also conspicuous in opposition. The Southern tionbysomeof 
vote was nearly solid against it. The Western f ^^'^ °^*^ p""?: 

"^ , , ^ , tectionists. It 

members were divided, but a majority supported was a New Eng- 
the measure. Webster voted " yea." As it was ^^ Pleasure. 
a New England bill it was sustained by the New England 
members. 

The Woollens Bill was referred in the Senate on the 13th 
of February, after debate, to the Committee on Manufactures. 
Two days later it was reported. On the 19th of 
this month debate was resumed on the motion Febmary is, is, 
to refer the bill to the Finance Committee. The ate. 
motion was defeated, as were two motions by 
Benton to recommit with instructions to equalize the duties 
on unmanufactured wool and wool in the skin with that on 
cloth, and to prohibit after January 1, 1828, the importa- 
tion of foreign unmanufactured wool. Another motion, by 
Macon, to recommit, with instructions to report as to the eifect 
on agriculture, manufactures, and finances, was also rejected. 

' Eegister of Debates, pp. 944, 9G8, 976. ^ Ibid., p. 996. 

'Ibid., pp. 1028-1099. By ninety-seven to eighty-five, the demand 
for the previous question was sustained ; by ninety to one hundred and 
nine, the House refused to adjourn ; by one hundred and two to ninety- 
eight, it voted to put the main question. 



126 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

The voting was close, as in the House/ The Congress was 
nearing the end, and the Senate refused to lay aside the 
military appropriation bill to consider the woollens measure. 
On the motion of Hayne the latter was, on the 
The bill lost by 28th of February, laid on the table by twenty- 
caihoun's cast- q^q ^q twcntv, Vicc-Presideiit Calhoun bavins' 

incr vote. 

Changes since givcn the Casting vote. Thus the bill was lost.* 
^^'^ In the course of its consideration we have ob- 

served a number of personal changes since 1824. Henceforth 
Mr. Webster is to stand with his section in favor of protection. 
Pennsylvania Democrats are to support a modified protec- 
tion, more on the principle of incidental protection than 
heretofore. Old Federalists, like McLane, are to co-operate 
with the Democratic party and oppose the ultra protective 
policy. The Vice-President is ever after to be leader of 
those State- rights Democrats who lean towards the doc- 
trine of free trade. 

Dickerson's bill to distribute annually for four years, 
beginning with the 1st day of January, 1828, five million 
dollars among the States in the ratio of direct taxation, was 
laid on the table at this session after an elaborate speech of 
explanation had been made by its author.^ 

A bill for the reduction of special duties on salt passed 
the Senate after considerable debate at the same session. 
It was stoutly opposed by the New York Sen- 
ators, Sanford and Van Buren.* Woodbury 
urged that it was a war measure ; that its reduction would 
not seriously affect treasury operations ; that consumption 
had nearly doubled in England upon the cutting off of 
thirteen-fifteenths of the salt excise, and that the bill would 
leave the manufactures of salt protected three times as much 
as those of iron, woollen cloths, or gunpowder.^ On the 



^ The votes on Benton's motions were, on the first, twenty-three ayea 
to twenty-four noes ; on the second, twenty-two yeas to twenty-five 
nays. 

=* Register of Debates, pp. 337, 348, 381, 387, 390, 488, 496. 

3 Ibid., pp. 209-223. * Ibid., pp. 230, 245. 

* Ibid., pp. 232-239. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 127 

other side, it was denied that mauufacturers reaped one 
hundred per cent, by the duty.^ A general bill to reduce 
this duty was laid on the table December 20, 1827.^ 

A bill also passed the Senate reducing the Teas, wines, 
duties on teas, wines, and coftee.^ It failed in *="'^^^- 
the House. 

On the last day of January, 1828, Mallary, from the 
Committee on Manufactures, reported a tariff igogjanuarysi 
measure, consideration of which was begun in Thetaniibiiiof 
committee of the whole on the 3d of March, 
and continued, with only occasional interruptions, until the 
22d of April following.* 

Mallary spoke for two days, and for the most part em- 
ployed the arguments in vogue since 1816 in defence of the 
protective theory.^ The policy of protection was 
necessary in order to prevent a most powerful 
and dangerous monopoly, — that of the mercantile interest on 
the seaboard, — which he called a moneyed aristocracy that 
would be resistless. In 1826 the Southern exports were nine- 
teen million and thirty-nine thousand dollars; for all the rest 
of the United States the exports were only one million, three 
hundred and sixty-one thousand dollars in amount. He 
stated that the efficient protection on bar-iron, with duty, 
exchange, and freight, was above one hundred per cent. 
The proposed duty in addition was four dollars and forty- 
four cents on hammered and seven dollars on rolled iron. 
The protection on the first was sixty-seven per cent., on 
the last one hundred and twenty-one. Pig-iron was ad- 
vanced twenty-five per cent., steel fifty per cent., or one 

^ Register of Debates, p. 239. 

"Ibid., p. 603. After discussion. It was by Harrison, and contem- 
plated a reduction from twenty to fifteen cents the first year, and ten 
cents the following years. Register of Debates, p. 3. 

' Ibid., p. 346 ; Journal, p. 185. 

♦ Register of Debates of Twentieth Congress, pp. 1274-2471. Only the 
heads of discussion with a few of the more cogent points in quotation 
will be furnished, as much of it was a mere repetition of previous tariff 
debates. 

<* Ibid., pp. 1729-1749. 



128 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

hundred and fifty dollars per hundred. In regard to 
woollen manufactures, he assigned as causes of depression 
the low price of wool in Europe as most important, then 
sales at auction and credit for revenue duties, also evasions 
of the duties and the irregularity of the market. He said 
that the tariff of 1816 revived hopes, but only for disap- 
pointment. The tariff of 1824 was delusive. Differing 
from the Committee on Manufactures, he did not wish for 
an additional duty on wool. Indeed, he was fully confident 
such a duty would drive the manufacturer out of the coun- 
try. He would prefer a specific duty of eighteen or twenty 
cents on wool costing more than eight cents a pound. The 
bill proposed seven cents specific duty and an increasing 
duty to fifty per cent, ad valorem. He complained of the 
small diflerence in minima, which in the bill was fifty cents 
and one dollar for the lower grades. He proposed to fix 
the first year's duty at forty per cent, for coarser fabrics, 
with a rise of five per cent, until fifty should be reached. 
The second minimum he would make two dollars and fifty 
cents. The proposed hemp duty was too large, and he 
opposed the additional duty on molasses because it would 
injure an important trade in the Eastern States. " ISTew 
England takes your flour ; Europe does not," he ingeniously 
argued. Barney antagonized Mallary's amendment. He 
also offered testimony as to the inferiority of American 
flax.^ Stevenson, of Pennsylvania, a member of 

Stevenson. , ^^ . -»*- ^ - • i 

the Committee on Manufactures, in advocating 
the bill, stated that the product of pig-iron in the United 
States was one hundred and one thousand tons or sixty-seven 
thousand tons hammered bar-iron. Three-tenths of what 
was used was imported.^ He contended that the aggregate 
increase of protection to the wool-grower was two hundred 
and fifty-one thousand, two hundred and seventy-six dollars.^ 
He admitted that duties were placed comparativeh' high on 
the more costly woollens. This speech was in reply to Mal- 



' Register of Debates of Twentieth Congress, p. 1751. 
» Ibid., p. 1760. « Ibid., p. 1768. 



THE TARIFF — t8S0-18S8. 129 

lary, but he combated Webster's argument in the matter 
of the molasses tax. He said that the duty had not been 
inserted to weigh down the bill, because in 1824 Clay was 
its author.^ He advocated protection of agricultural prod- 
ucts as well as of manufactures. Anderson, of Maine, 
attacked the bill as prohibitory.^ There was no necessity 
for raising duties on iron, steel, spirits, hemp, flax, and 
molasses, and he disputed the claim that woollen manufac- 
tures were depressed more than other industries. Claiborne 
thought that " incessant augmentation of duties 

Claiborne. 

on imported articles to favor manufacturers was 
a dangerous procedure." ' Some of the nations of the earth 
might also prohibit some of our great staples. The vast 
and valuable products of the South were as important to 
the Korth as they were to the South, because they gave 
employment to ships and seamen,* Wright, of New York, 
avowed that he was the author of the report accompanying 
the bill. He stated that " one leading principle which oper- 
ated upon his mind in the formation of the 

^ . - . Wright. 

present bill was that it was not and could not 
be the policy of this government or of this Congress to turn 
the manufacturing capital of this country to the manufact- 
ure of a raw material of a foreign country while we did or 
could produce the same material in sufficient quantities 
ourselves." Replying to Mallary, he said he believed that 
the United States now produced sufficient quantities of 
coarse wool for every demand of present manufactures. 
But if that was not the case, he asked if it was sound policy 
to import the wool free of duty. His whole argument on 
this head was based on supposition. He had no certain 
data for wool-growing except the figures for New York in 
1825. But he estimated the whole number of sheep at 
thirteen million, eight hundred and nine thousand, six 
hundred and seventy-eight. ''Suppose," he continued, 
" sixty millions to be the correct amount consumed of woollen 



* Register of Debates of Twentieth Congress, p. 1771. 
2 Ibid., p. 1773. * Ibid., p. 1793. * Ibid., p. 1794. 

9 



130 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

goods in the country." The value of the raw wool was 
half the face value. Of the supposed sixty millions not far 
from fifty millions were manufactured in the United States. 
The manufactures upon the seaboard used none of the 
coarse domestic wool of the country. He declared that 
there was no evidence that the manufacture of coarse wool 
had increased in proportion to the increase in the importa- 
tion of the material. He asked if Congress would adopt a 
provision the eflect of which would be to repeal the duty 
already imposed upon foreign wool. He stated the general 
rule to be that the cost of wool and the cost of manufactur- 
ing it into cloth were about equal. In order, however, to 
give the American manufacturer equal advantage it was 
necessary to add sufficient duty to amount to -sixty-five per 
cent, upon the cost in England of the wool used there, as 
the Americans paid a medium price of sixty-five per cent, 
more for their raw wool used in manufacture than their 
English rivals did. He diflfered from the Committee on 
Manufactures and thought that fifty per cent, would pay the 
duty, costs, and charges.^ On the 12th of March, Davis, 
of Massachusetts, replied to Stevenson and Wright. He 
March 12. Contended that the early policy upon revenue 

Davis. measures was protective and not merely for 

revenue.^ He said that the prices of most woollen goods, 
such as negro cloths, flannels, coarse cassimeres, satinettes, 
and broadcloths, had been reduced by the duty forty to 
fifty per cent. Yet he made this admission : " I believe I 
hazard nothing in saying that most branches of manufact- 
uring in this country have been commenced and prosecuted 
to a considerable extent unaided b}' any special legislative in- 
terference."* Difficulties in the way of this statement were 
thus met : " It seems paradoxical that a branch of industry 
requiring mechanical skill and capital should in the hands 
of inexperienced men establish itself and rise by its vigor 
into sufficient magnitude and importance to attract the 



^ For Wright's speech, see Register of Debates, pp. 1835-1870. 
* Ibid., p. 1883. « Ibid., p. 1887. 



THE TARIFF^1820-1S28. 131 

notice of the nation, and then be unable to maintain itself." 
He undertook to give the explanation. The price had fallen 
and England, having overstocked the market, was able to 
hold up, while domestic manufacturers were driven to ask 
protection. He opposed Wright's reasoning respecting the 
sufficiency for our market of American cheap wool on two 
grounds: 1, It was not as cheap as the imported article; 
2, it was not obtainable.^ " Whatever," said this Repre- 
sentative of Massachusetts, " means to aid the wool-grower 
must place the manufacturer in a condition to purchase." 
Martindale said, " Cotton is cheaper here than in England, 
and yet the American manufacturer needs protection." 
Labor, he explained, was lower in England. " You must," 
he insisted, " regulate prices here by the cost of production 
here, the only standard of value here." ^ Barnard, a pro- 
tectionist, said that it was national and not 

Barnard. 

individual monopoly that was wanted.^ He 
declared that if the proposed reduction on cloths costing 
fifty cents and under was made he would not vote for the 
bill ; and he supported Mallary's substitute. Ingham on 
the 18th and Hoffman on the 20th and 25th of March op- 
posed the amendment and supported the original j,, ^jam 
measure.* The latter stated that the total num- Hoflfman. 
ber of sheep in the United States was twenty- 
two millions. The square yard duty of sixteen cents pro- 
posed in the bill was equal to sixty per cent, on fifty cent 
cloth. He thought that that was abundant protection. 
Labor, this speaker asserted, was as cheap in the United 
States as it was in England.® Compared with this bill the 
celebrated Woollens Bill of 1827 was weak and defective-. 
The latter did not in any case afiect to raise the duty except 
in so far as the minimums could do it.^ He replied to 
Barnard's charge that there was a bargain between the 
friends of the bill and the Southern members by a general 



' Register of Debates, p. 1890. "^ Ibid., p. 1906. 

» Ibid., p. 1930. * Ibid., pp. 1938, 195& 

* Ibid., p. 1988. • Ibid., p. 1992. 



132 A HISTORY OF TEE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

denial of its truth. Both gentlemen were excited in the 
discussion, A Massachusetts member declared that there 
was not only power to legislate on the subject, 
but that pledges had been given in 1789, 1816, 
and 1824 that legislation for the protection of manufactures 
should follow : the eifect of which argument was that the 
giving of one loaf made it necessary to give two, four, eight, 
and so on ad infimtum} He contended that the duties in the 
bill were too low at the minimum points ; that these points 
were too near each other, and that the duty upon wool was 
disproportionately high, so reducing the duty upon woollens, 
or so aiiecting the bill that it defeated itseU? Denying that 
protection was a political measure, he said he was friendly 
to the administration because it supported the American 
system. This member (Bates) made an indirect admission 
that the bill was throughout obnoxious to the objection that 
the duties were excessive.^ Forward, of Penn- 

Forward. • i » • 

s^dvania, maintained that American wool was 
sufficient for the domestic market. Mallary's amendment 
was rejected by a vote of seventy-eight to one hundred and 
two. He immediately offered others abolishing the one 
dollar minimum. These amendments were debated the 

next day. Buchanan opposed them with strong 

Buchanan. ♦' t i • • • i • • l> 

arguments. In his opinion no combination ot 
wool-growers and woollen manufacturers should even 
attempt to dictate a tariff to the people of the United States. 
He declared that Pennsylvania had not sustained the Har- 
risburg propositions. The legislature drew the line between 
protection and prohibition.* He said that should the Mal- 
lary amendment be adopted, no goods between fifty cents 
and two dollars and twenty-five cents could be imported. 
The Woollens Bill of 1827 differed from the amendment 
pending in that the former proposed no increase of ad 
valorem duty and it had a minimum between fifty cents and 
two dollars and fifty cents. Under the amendment the 

^ Register of Debates, p. 1999. * Ibid., p. 2004. 

^ Ibid., p, 2012. * Ibid., p. 2040. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 133 

ad valorem duty was increased from thirty-three and a third 
to fifty per cent. Buchanan admitted that more protec- 
tion was needed, but he would give it in " the ancient ad 
valorem manner."^ Mallary's and several other amend- 
ments were rejected.^ Sprague, on April 1, showed that 
the bill would increase the duties on ship-building mate- 
rials.^ 

Buchanan took a large share in the debates. His speeches 
on this tariif appear to mark a dividing line on the tarilf 
question. He replied to the New England pro- 
tectionists that, if the American system was to 
protect New England manufactures and abandon Pennsyl- 
vania farmers, he would rejoice at its grave.* He predicted 
that there would be no more exclusive tarifis for the benefit 
of any one portion of the Union, and he said explicitly that 
the tariff of 1824 partook much of this character. In the 
discussions upon the pending tariff bill the clashing of in- 
terests between the various industries seeking protection 
was greater than on any previous occasion. Up The south 
to the time at which we have now arrived the breaks suence. 
Southern members had been patient spectators, with one 
or two exceptions, having taken no part in the debates. 
Following the sarcastic speech of Buchanan, Bryan, of 
North Carolina, explained his reasons for breaking this 
silence. He said that the article of molasses was one which 
his constituents imported in great quantity from the West 
Indies. North Carolina's only foreign trade was with those 
islands. Her tonnage, only slightly inferior to that of A^ir- 
ginia, was greater than that of any State to the southward.' 
Carson, also from North Carolina, opposed both the pending 
proposition and the bill.® Stanberry, of Ohio, contended 
that, if there were any soundness in the usual argument in 
support of the protective system, manufactories in Ohio 
could not flourish unless she could also protect them against 

1 Register of Debates, p. 2042. * Ibid., p. 2050. 

' Ibid., p. 2057. * Ibid., p. 2092. 

6 Ibid., pp. 2110-2118. 
* It was on a motion to increase the duty on molasses. 



134 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the injurious effects of New England competition.^ This 
was the Western argument as against the Eastern States, 
The Western ^^^ it was also employed as against the South- 
argument, ern. The same speaker said "that the "West 
India planters cannot afford to receive American com- 
modities unless the Americans continue to receive in re- 
turn for them West India produce is the argument of 
the Southern States against the whole American system, 
and this is now the argument of the Eastern States in oppo- 
sition to increase of duty on molasses. And just as the 
New England argument is that England will be compelled 
to take and pay for in cash our cotton, so the West Indies 
will be forced to have our fish and lumber, and pay for them, 
if need be, in money." ^ Reed, of Massachusetts, accused 
Pennsylvania of giving New Eno^land a tariff 

Massachusetts ^ -^ . 

taunts Pennsyi- which they did not want, and then, when 
vama. manufacturing was stimulated and afterwards 

needed further support, refusing it, — " the warm tariff," he 
said, " waxed cold." ^ Moore complained that corn in Ken- 
tucky was fifty cents a barrel, and stated that hemp was 
not of so much importance as to make it necessary to insist 
on a high duty. There were intimations that the political 
alliance between Clay and Adams had changed a part of 
the Kentucky vote on the question of taxing molasses.* 
There was a conflict between the hemp-growers, 
key; cotton who wcrc also manufacturers of whiskey, and 
bagging; mo- the cottou-baggiug manufacturers, who sought 

lasses. _ "'^ "^ ' c? 

the aid of New England by favoring a low mo- 
lasses duty.^ Clark's amendment, which provided for such 
a duty and also a duty on unmanufactured as well as manu- 
factured hemp, was adopted on the 4th of April. Twenty- 
two different amendments were defeated, when the bill was 
reported to the House from the committee of the whole.® 

On April 7 an unsuccessful attempt to amend the woollen 
schedules, so far as they related to blankets, worsted stuffs, 

' Register of Debates, p. 2120. ^ Ibid., p. 2122. 

" Ibid., p. 2154. * Ibid., p. 2175. 

* Ibid., pp. 2164, 2178. « Ibid., p. 2188. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 135 

and bombazines, was followed by a like effort (with a similar 
unsuccess) to increase the duty on manufactures of hemp 
and flax other than cotton bagging.^ Gurley 
and Moore held that the promises made in 
1824, that cotton bagging would be reduced in consequence 
of the higher duty imposed, had not been real- 
ized. Little more than half of the demand was 
supplied. It had been necessary in the South to establish a 
factory for the making of cotton instead of hemp bagging.^ 
Chilton, for Kentucky, complained not of the price the man- 
ufacturer received, but of the fact that so much of the article 
was imported. On Buchanan's suggestion, the mover con- 
sented to five cents as the duty in place of five and a half.^ 
By a vote of one hundred and twelve to seventy-seven the 
amendment was then adopted. Thirty per cent, additional 
duty on spirits was imposed, the amendment of the com- 
mittee of the whole having been adopted.* 

On the subject of woollens, Stewart said that it was better, 
evidently, for the farmer that the raw material wooiiens. 
should be imported than the manufactured Stewart. 
article. For the enormous increase of fifteen to one hun- 
dred and fifty per cent, on coarse wool not produced in the 
country only three and a third per cent, increase was offered 
to the manufacturer. While hemp and flax were raised 
about one hundred per cent., their products, except 
"duck," had not been protected additionally. It was 
nearly the same thing of iron and its manufactures.® 
Stewart claimed that there had been a great reduction of 
prices under the protective tariff", and the table he pre- 
; sented appeared to bear out his statement. He also alleged 
that the tariff of 1824 had nearly doubled the cotton export 
to Great Britain the following year.^ Barney, in a subse- 
quent stage of the discussion, predicted that a number of 

' Register of Debates, p. 2200. 

2 Ibid., p. 2203. ^ Ibid., p. 2208. 

* This amendment was to strike out ten and insert thirty.— Register 
of Debates, p. 2222. 
^ Ibid., p. 2224. * Ibid., p. 2240. 



136 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

railroads and projected railroads in various States would be 
interfered with by the proposed increase in iron duties. 
The answer to this was the adoption of Stevenson's amend- 
ment extending the duty to bolt-iron.* 

On the same day the discussion reverted to the principle 
of minimum versus progressive ad valorem duties, Mallary 
advocated the former, but yielded the floor to Buchanan, 
whose modification of the amendment of Mallary provided 
for progressive duties of thirty to forty and forty to fifty per 
cent, ad valorem. Ingham's amendment of the Buchanan 
amendment, which was to strike out the progressive duties, 
was rejected.^ "Wright, of New York, favored a return to 
minimum duties, as being better for the manufacturers upon 
their own statements. Finally, on the 10th of 
ori^^ai mini- April, after an elaborate discussion, the House 
ma re-estab- adopted Sutherland's amendment, which re- 
established the original minima: fifty cents, 
one dollar, and two dollars and fifty cents ; for the first, forty 
cents the square yard on goods between two dollars and fifty 
cents and four dollars; exceeding four dollars, forty-five 
per cent, ad valorem.^ The high protectionists objected to 
the one dollar minimum. Sutherland's amendment, unlike 
Mallary's, contained a specific duty of four cents on the 
pound on wool. For that reason it was favored by HofiT- 
man and opposed by Bates.* The extreme protectionists 
voted with the opponents of the bill to recom- 
sJtherifn"^"^ mit it, but the motion was rejected.^ At last, 
amendment all Other propositions having been defeated, the 
^ °^ ^ ' Mallary amendment, as amended by that of 

Sutherland, was adopted, — one hundred and eighty-three 
to seventeen. 

Heretofore all the provisions of the bill were for the 
benefit of the Northern farmer or manufac- 
^^"^^*' turer. On the 14th of April Haile, of Missis- 
sippi, proposed and advocated vigorously a prohibitory duty 

1 Register of Debates, pp. 2247, 2252. 

» Ibid., p. 2260. ' Ibid., pp. 2267, 2290. 

* Ibid., p. 2284. ^ Ibid., p. 2307. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 137 

on indigo and castor oil. The latter article was dropped, 
but the proposition to tax imported indigo at twenty-five 
cents a pound, with an annual increase of ten 
cents, amounting in all to seventy-five cents, was ^^°' 

favored by McDuflie and Livingston, and opposed by Ham- 
ilton, of South Carolina.^ Stewart, of Pennsylvania, and 
Burges, of Rhode Island, also opposed the proposition. 
Drayton, of South Carolina, who was hostile to Dravton and 
the duty on general grounds of opposition to Stewart. 
all protective measures, asked Stewart several difiicult ques- 
tions, convicting him of proclaiming that he had always 
voted for an increase of the tariff, while on the particular 
item at issue he urged that the proposed duty would be 
onerous upon the manufacturer. " Is the inhabitant of the 
South not oppressed by the enormous tax upon woollens to 
which he has been so long subjected? Are his interests to 
be disregarded when they conflict with those of the East 
and jSTorth ? Are these the fruits of the boasted American 
system ?" ^ Cambreleng was surprised to see gentlemen 
who favored protection in opposition to the amendment. 
Haile urged Southern men to vote for the duty ^ ^^^^ ^^ 
on indigo, and declared that the way the tarift" snatch. 
question was managed it was a "mere game of snatch."' 
After further consideration the amendment was adopted by 
a vote of one hundred and three to ninety.* 

The bill was now placed in the critical condition of a risk 
of defeat by some of its own friends votins: ^ , 

•^ _ & In danger of 

against it on account of certain features, objec- defeat by its 
tionable to their constituents, which had been "^° ^' 
incorporated into it. A movement to strike out or to reduce 
the molasses duty drew forth a bevy of curious explanations. 
It was proclaimed by Southern and some l^orthern oppo- 
nents of the measure that they would vote to keep the 
molasses duty in to influence votes against the bill on its 
final passage. A South Carolina member said that he 



I Register of Debates, p. 2322. " Ibid., p. 2325. 

» Ibid., p. 2329. * Ibid., p. 2332. 



138 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

wished that the poor might be made to feel its oppressive 
operation, that a stronger interest might be created in the 
A Southern countrj against the tariff system.^ Another 
opinion. gentleman said that " the Southern country 

could furnish molasses enough for the whole country," and 
Livingston, of Louisiana, wished that his constituents should 
have some of the advantages of the bill, if any were to 
grow out of it.^ Amendments to reduce from ten to seven 
and a half cents per gallon and to strike out the duty were 
lost.^ The yeas and nays on the previous question were 
The previous Ordered by one hundred and ten to ninety-one. 
question. Among the " nays" were such extreme protec- 

tionists as Bates, of Massachusetts, B urges and Sprague, of 
Rhode Island, Martindale, of New York, Stewart, of Penn- 
sylvania, and Wright, of Ohio. On the main question the 
yeas were one hundred and nine, the naj^s ninety-one. On 
this vote the Southern members and the straight free-traders, 
like Cambreleng, were recorded " nay." Buchanan, Hoff- 
man, Ingham, Stevenson, Sutherland, and Wright, of New 
York, were found voting yea with Mallary, Burges, Taylor, 
and other high protectionists. They had the most of that 
which they desired, if there was a measurable disappointment 
for the latter group. Bates and Davis, of Massachusetts, 
voted " no." The dissatisfaction of some of the extreme pro- 
New England tectiouists of the manufacturing districts, espe- 
dissatisfied. cially in New England, was profound. Pearce, 
of Rhode Island, announced his intention to vote for Ran- 
dolph's motion for indefinite postponement.* Debate on the 
passage was continued with great earnestness until the 22d 
of April. The argument against the bill was chiefly that 
by prohibiting wool a temporary benefit to the wool-growers 
M'ould result in serious injury to the manufacturers. Mc- 
Dufiie spoke on the 18th of April of the silence of " the 
peculiar and destined victim," the Southern States, on the 
occasion, and examined the question of profits of woollen 

^ Register of Debates, p. 2344. 

* Sutherland, Ibid., pp. 2335, 2346. ' Ibid., p. 2347. 

* Register of Debates, pp. 2348, 2356. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 139 

manufacturers, the price of labor and what he called " this 
system of sectional combination." He attempted inge- 
niously to prove that woollen manufactures could be made 
in Great Britain for little more than half the price it would 
cost to make them in the United States and that the dificr- 
ence grew out of permanent causes.* He contended, against 
the Harrisburg convention, that a given quantity of wool 
could be worked for one-third less in Great Britain than in 
this country. The duty on wool manuftictures was either 
a benefit or a burden : if the former, how could an addi- 
tional bounty be imposed at the community's expense ; and 
if a burden, as he believed it was, how infamous the delu- 
sion practised upon the farmers ! * McDuffie, saying that 
the South was for free trade because of its posi- 
tion, and not on sentimental grounds, declared free trade be- 
he would not undertake to say that that section ^^^"^ ^^^^ i^ 

11 1 ••I'll- sition. 

would not be tempted to join " this plundering 
expedition" if a tarifi:' could be so regulated as to increase 
the price of cotton. He contended that it was a contest 
between less than one hundred thousand manufacturers and 
farmers against all the other manufacturers and flirmers in 
the country, and against the whole Southern population. 
The severance of the Union and loss of liberty, if it ever 
came, would be ascribable to such measures. No imposture 
was equal to it.^ Barbour, Alexander, and Hamilton, all 
Southerners, followed in brief speeches. The constitu- 
tional argument, waived by McDuffie and only hinted at by 
Barbour, was entered upon fully by the Virginian, Alex- 
ander. Hamilton said that there was a state of feeling 
throughout the Southern States which no prudent man 
would treat with contempt and no patriot would not desire 
to see allayed. Thompson, of Georgia, and Martin, of 
South Carolina, maintained the devotion of the South to 
the Union.* But for the occasion the parties to the sectional 
struggle were changed. Sharp tilts between the Eastern 



1 Register of Debates, pp. 2382, 2384. * Ibid. , p. 2393. 

» Ibid., p. 2405. * Ibid., pp. 2435, 2451, 2470. 



140 A. HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

and Western speakers occurred.' The previous question 
on the passage of the bill was taken on the 22d of April, 
. ., and resulted in a vote of ayes one hundred and 

April 22. . "^ 

Passage in the twcutj-two to uocs sixtj-thrce. The bill passed 
House. ^1^^ House by one hundred and five to ninety- 

four. The yeas were S. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, 
Barber, Barlow, Barnard, Beecher, Belden, Blake, Brown, 
Buchanan, Buck, Buckner, Bunner, Burges, Chase, Chilton, 
J. C. Clark, J. Clark, Condict, Coulter, Creighton, Crownin- 
ehield, Daniel, John Davenport, De Graff, Dickinson, Dun- 
can, Dwight, Earll, Findlay, Forward, Fry, Garnsey, 
Garrow, Green, Harvey, Healy, Hobbie, Hoffman, Hunt, 
Jennings, Johns, Keese, King, Lawrence, Lecompte, Leffler, 
Letcher, Little, Lyon, Magee, Mallary, Markell, Martin- 
dale, Marvin, Maxwell, McHatton, S. McKean, W. McKean, 
Merwin, Metcalfe, Miller, Miner, J. Mitchell, Thomas P. 
Moore, Orr, Phelps, Pierson, Ramsey, Russell, Sergeant, 
Sloane, Smith, Stanberry, Stevenson, Sterigere, Stewart, 
Storrs, Stowcr, Strong, Swan, Swift, Sutherland, Taylor, H. 
Thompson, Tracy, E. Tucker, Vance, Van Horn, Van Rens- 
selaer, Vinton, Wales, Whipple, Whittlesey, Wickliffe, Wil- 
son, J. J. Wood, S. Wood, J. Woods, Woodcock, Wolf, 
S. Wright, J. C. Wright, Yancey. The negative vote was 
as follows : Alexander, Robert Allen, S. C. Allen, Alston, 
J. Anderson, Archer, Bailey, P. P. Barbour, Barker, Bar- 
ringer, Bartlett, E. Bates, L C. Bates, Bell, Blair, Brent, 
Bryan, Butman, Cambreleng, Carson, Carter, Claiborne, 
Conner, Crockett, Culpeper, Thomas Davenport, J. Davis, 
W. R. Davis, Desha, Dorsey, Drayton, Everett, Floyd, 
Fort, Gale, Gilmer, Gorham, Gurley, Haile, Hallock, Hall, 
Hamilton, Haynes, Hodges, Holmes, Ingersoll, Isacks, John- 
son, Kerr, Lea, Livingston, Locke, Long, Lumpkin, Mara- 
ble, Martin, McCoy, McDuffie, Mclntire, McKee, Mercer, 
J. C. Mitchell, Gabriel Moore, Newton, Nuckolls, Oakley, 
O'Brien, Owen, Pearce, Plant, Polk, Randolph, Reed, Rich- 
ardson, Riplej^ Rives, Roane, Sawyer, A. H, Shepperd, A. 

1 Register of Debates, pp. 2452, 2453. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 14X 

Smyth, Sprague, Taliaferro, "W. Thompson, Trezvant, S. 
Tucker, Turner, Varnum, Verplanck, Ward, Washington, 
Weems, Wilde, Williams, Wingate.^ 

Among the nays were those members of the Massachu- 
setts delegation who had made such strenuous opposition 
to the prominent feature of the bill, the duty on wool. 

The debate began in the Senate May 5. Amendments 
proposed by the Committee on Manufactures ^^ ^ 
on the iron and wool schedules were rejected. Debate in the 
Specific duties were stricken out in section 2, 
and a minimum was substituted, which changed the duty 
from forty to fifty per cent, ad valorem? The casting vote 
of the chair rejected the amendment, including woollen 
blankets at forty per cent, ad valorem? Fifty per cent, ad 
valorem on ready-made clothing was agreed to. 

In advocating the duty on molasses as an encouragement 
to Western distillers, Benton said that whiskey ^^^,^^^ ^^ the 
was " the healthiest liquor that was drank, as heaithfuinessof 
men were known who had been drunk upon it ^ ^^ ^^' 
for forty or fifty years, whilst rum finished its victim in 
eight or ten years." * The House had refused to adopt 
higher increased duties than fifty per cent, on lead and shot, 
products of Missouri. Benton stated that he and Kane, 
of Illinois, had agreed to present an amendment in the 
Senate for an increase of one hundred per cent. He ad- 
mitted that it might be thought to be high, but added that 
if it was rejected there was nothing in the bill which could 
induce him to vote for it.' The lead duty as 
proposed was adopted.^ The bill as amended 
was reported to the Senate on the second day, and the first 
five amendments on woollen cloths and those on carpeting, 
ready-made clothing, and lead were adopted.^ 

Many of the arguments were the same as those that had 
been used in the House and need not be repeated. As in 

' Register of Debates, First Session, Twentieth Congress, p. 2471 ; 
House Journal, First Session, Twentietin Congress, p. 607. 

* Ibid. , p. 725. 3 Ibid. , p. 726. See also 7.34, where the vote is repealed. 

* Ibid., p. 726. * Ibid., p. 729. « Ibid., p. 732. ' Ibidem. 



142 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

1824, it was alleged and denied that the tarift' was evaded by 
importers. Parris, of Maine, opposed the bill strongly be- 
various argu- cause it would increase the revenue unneces- 
ments. sarily, taking from the people what the public 

service did not demand. Dickerson retorted, " How had 
Maine gained her prosperity but by discriminations in favor 
of American tonnage and protection of the fisheries ?" ^ 
Smith, of Maryland, and Parris, in reply, claimed that 
Maine's prosperity was due to other causes. The operation 
of the bounty was not on the fisheries, but on the consump- 
tion of salt.^ The low-tariif men also argued that the fall 
in the price of iron was not due to moderation in the 
domestic manufacturer, but to railroads in England and to 
water instead of land carriage in the Scandinavian states.' 
jj^ ^^ Hayne said that Dickerson, in answer to Parris's 

Southern inter- couiplaints with rcspcct to the oppressive oper- 
ation of the bill on New England shipping had 
condoled with him by saying that they had only to transfer 
the tax to those in whose service the New England shipping 
was employed, — in other words, don't mind the tax, put it 
on the South. He asserted that Southern interests had been 
shamefully sacrificed from beginning to end.* 

After many allusions had been made on both sides to New 

England's change of policy, Webster explained 

Webster ex- ^^^q rcasous to be assiffucd for it. It was laid 

plains New ^ ^ ^ 

England's to her charge in 1824, he said, that, having 

c ange o po - gg^j^|3]ig]^e(j \^Qy manufactures herself, she wished 
that others should not have the power of rival- 
ling her, and therefore opposed all legislative encourage- 
ment. Now, he continued, the imputation is of precisely 
an opposite character. Both charges, he insisted, were 
without foundation. After the solemn promulgation of the 
policy of the government, which he claimed was a final 
declaration, was New England to deny herself the use of her 
natural and acquired advantages? "Was she to content her- 



^ Register of Debates, p. 744. '^ Ibid., p. 745. 

» Ibidem. * Ibid., p. 746. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-1828. 143 

self with useless regrets, — to resist what she could no longer 
prevent ? Proceeding, he argued, that the passage of the 
tariff act of 1824 and of an act by the English Parliament, 
shortly afterwards, reducing the duty twenty-six per cent, on 
imported wool gave the British manufacturer great advan- 
tage, and afforded ground for another measure, advocacy of 
which was reinforced by consideration of hopes excited, 
enterprises undertaken, and capital invested in consequence 
of the tariff act of 1824.^ Webster said that the object in 
taxing molasses was to make New England feel the smart 
of the bill and deter her from the protection of her exten- 
sive woollen factories. It was abominable. He grew loftily 
indignant, and declared that it was impossible to intimidate 
New England. He lectured the North Carolina Senators, 
whom, he said, by their votes laid a burden on their con- 
stituents, large importers and consumers of the article.^ 
The bill could not be what it had been termed, " a bill of 
abominations," because its operation was merely to create a 
market for the wool-grower. 

Webster, opposing the increased duty proposed on hemp, 
offered a substitute, the effect of which was that the Navy 
Department should be directed to purchase for the use of 
the navy of the United States American water-rotted 
hemp, when it could be procured of a suitable quality, and 
at a price not exceeding by more than twenty per cent, the 
price of the imported article. Upon this Johnson, of Ken- 
tucky, said that New England was ready to desert the West. 
The debate was participated in by Webster, Benton, Smith, 
of Maryland, Dickerson, Tazewell, and Rowan. On divi- 
sion of Webster's proposition only ten Senators — all from 
New England — voted to strike out the hemp duty, while 
thirty-six votes were recorded against striking out.^ 

Benton proposed a duty of twenty-five cents a pound per 
year on indigo " in order to revive an ancient industry of 
the South." It was a progressive duty, to stop at one dollar 



» Register of Debates, p. 753. * Ibid., p. 756. 

' Ibid. , p. 765. The ayes were Chandler, Foot, Knight, Parris, Kobbins, 
Seymour, Silsbee, Webster, Willey, and Woodbury. 



144 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

per pound. The act of 1816 had reduced the duty from 
twenty-five to fifteen cents. Macon, Smith, of Maryland, 
Benton, and Hayne spoke for the amendment, and Dicker- 
son, Knight, and Woodbury opposed it. Dickerson said, 
*' We struggle against an unnecessary imposition, one which 
will not aid the agriculturist and yet will injure the manu- 
facturer." Benton accused Dickerson of having changed 
front on this question of protecting products. The latter's 
proposition limiting the ultimate duty to fifty cents was 
adopted, and another amendment provided that the increase 
should be ten cents for the first year and five cents for each 
succeeding year. Benton averred that this was an insult to 
the South. That section was to be allowed twenty per cent, 
on the article for five years, while the cloths of New England 
were placed at seventy per cent, instanter.^ Motions to 
increase cordage duty five cents and for a progressive duty 
on wool in the skin, making the latter prohibitory in four 
years, were lost.^ Benton, the mover, also proposed a duty 
of ten per cent, per annum on unmanufactured wool until 
it should arrive at fifty per cent, ad valorem., and five per 
cent, afterwards up to seventy per cent. It was rejected, as 
was also his motion to increase the proposed amount on 
molasses from ten cents to sixteen.' He debated this prop- 
osition with remarkable ability. Accepting Webster's 
statement that the article was used principally in New Eng- 
land and as a substitute for sugar, he said, " While the 
statesmen of 1790 estimated that molasses should be taxed 
in the rate of eight cents per gallon for one pound of sugar, 
the duty now stood three cents on brown sugar and only 
five cents per gallon on molasses. Thus New England got 
its sugar at a disproportionately low rate compared with the 
rest of the union, which on account of the difiiculty of 
transportation could not use sugar."* Benton was very 
active in his efforts against this bill, which were mostly 
unsuccessful. His amendments to strike out the duty on 

1 Register of Debates, p. 775. * Ibid., pp. 775, 776. 

' The existing rate was only five cents per gallon. 
* Register of Debates, p. 777. 



THE TARIFF — 1820-18S8. 145 

woollen blankets, to tax furs thirty-three and one-third 
per cent., to lay a duty of ten dollars per ton on hemp until 
the duty amounted to ninety dollars were all rejected. So 
also was the proposition of Smith, of South Carolina, to 
strike out the cotton bagging duty, based chiefly on the fall 
in the price of cotton, which was felt severely by the plan- 
ters.^ The Senate changed the date on which the bill was 
to go into operation from June 30 to September 1. By a 
vote of twenty-six to twenty-one it was ordered to its third 
reading. The vote was very nearly sectional ; but Chandler, 
Parris, Robbins, Silsbee, and Woodbury, New Englanders, 
voted with the Southern Senators in the negative.^ On the 
question of passage Hayne spoke at length in opposition. 
He protested solemnly against it as a partial, Final passage of 
unjust, and unconstitutional measure, and the biu of i828. 
moved an indefinite postponement. Although on this vote 
some of the Northern opponents of the bill abandoned 
Hayne, the vote remained as to figures as before, — twenty- 
six to twenty-one.* 

^ Register of Debates, p. 784. 

* Two Southern Senators then classed as Western voted nay. These 
were Johnston, of Louisiana, and White, of Tennessee. Register of 
Debates, p. 785. 

^ Parris, Robbins, Silsbee, and Woodbury voted in the negative. The 
act was approved May 19. Register of Debates, p. 786. 



10 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 

The tariff of 1824 stimulated manufacturing enterprises. 
Lead-mining and manufactures began in Missouri and iron- 
mining in Virginia. Four years later there 

Retrospect. ° r • - ^~r ■, ^ ^^ -, 

were cotton factories m JNorth Carolina and 
Georgia. Indeed, throughout the N^orthern and in parts 
of the Western and Southern States there was a great 
growth of manufactures.* 

The increase of manufacturing was accompanied by a 
Revival of pro- stroug rcvival of the protection spirit which 
tectionism. entered parties and controlled the action of 
politicians. The administration of Mr. Adams was distinc- 
tively in favor of the policy of protection. The Secretary 
of State was the leader of the protectionists. On the other 
hand, General Jackson, who in both of his terms in the 
Senate had co-operated with the protectionists in vote and 
speech, became the leader as well of the anti-protectionists 
as of the anti-ad ministrationists.^ But the opposition to the 
great economic feature of the administration was not simply 
political. The commercial bodies in the large cities, as well 
Opposition ^^ ^^® planters and farmers in the South and 

soiitii Carolina Southwest, made strong protests. Organized 
iiKinia. political movements began in South Carolina 
and Virginia about the time of the Harrisburg convention, 
and the arrangement of the programme for further protec- 
tion. Resolutions were passed by the legislature of the 

* Niles's Eegister, August 1 2, October 21, 1826 ; August 9, 1828. In that 
latter year three cotton factories were in existence in North Carolina, and 
one was started in Georgia. 

* But Jackson, as we shall see, did not go to the extreme. 

146 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 147 

latter State, and adopted by the public meetings held in the 
former, during the spring and summer of 1827. Mr. Madi- 
son opposed the anti-taritf declaration of Virginia, but he 
and Mr. Monroe refused to permit the use of their names 
on the Adams or anti-Jackson electoral ticket.' The 
tariff convention of July 30, 1827, at Harris- ^^.^^^ ^^ ^^^ 
burg did not consolidate the protectionist Harrisburgcou- 
strength, for Buchanan and many others of 
less prominence changed position in opposition to the 
views there advanced. The proposed duty on wool and 
woollen goods was resisted by not only the commercial 
centres, but by a class of the manufacturers, as we have 
seen in the previous chapter on the tariff debates. The bill 
of 1828 fell short of the expectations of many of the bm of 
of its friends, wool-growers and manufacturers. ^^^^• 
But flags on some of the vessels in Charleston harbor were 
placed at half mast, many meetings were held in the State 
of South Carolina and some elsewhere, and Southern news- 
papers began an agitation against the tariff. Even in the 
earliest meetings disunion was talked of by some Non-intercourse 
of the South Carolina speakers, and in several and disunion. 

n ji • . 1 .• Early meetings. 

oi them non-intercourse resolutions were 
adopted. Writers in the leading journal of South Carolina, 
the Charleston Mercury, advocated separation and war as 
the last resort, and such was also the language of some of 
the toasts at public dinners and other gatherings of the 
people. There was a moderate party in favor of union, but 
opposed as much as the other to the tariff and Theunionparty 
the protective principle. And at first the leaders opposed to the 
of the extreme State-rights party urged moder- 
ation. One of the toasts at the Fort Moultrie celebration, 
June 28, 1828, was, " The advocates of disunion. Palsied 
be the arm and withered the heart of him who would attempt 
to destroy this fair fabric of liberty."* 

* See Niles^s Register, October 10, 1827, for the former's letter to the 
Lynchburw Virginian. 

^ Charleston Courier, July 9, quoted by Niles's Register, July 26, 1828 ; 
Calhoun's letter to the editor of the United States Telegraph. 



148 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

In Georgia the excitement, although not so great as in" 
South Carolina, was considerable, and although she did not 
go so far or so fast, one of her grand juries " pre- 
sented" the tarift". But thej declared, " We will 
not suffer the dissolution of the Union to enter into the dis- 
cussion even as a dernier ressori." ^ On the other side of the 
line, in North Carolina, there was serious consideration of 
propositions for new crops to take the place of cotton, 
which had become unprofitable.^ The South, however, was 
far from unanimous. The protective party was strong in 
Virginia, and here and there through all of the Southern 
States were newspapers advocating their principles. Some 
of these papers made bold claims that various articles pro- 
tected by the tariff of 1824 had been reduced in price in 
consequence.^ The Senate of North Carolina 

North Carolina. ^ -, • • t\ t • n 

adopted resolutions in December, 1828, m favor 
of protection.* Governor Iredell, of that State, suggested 
" a mild and friendly remonstrance" against the tariff, and 
added the remark that a dissolution of the Union was not to 
be thought of. The message of Governor Johnson, of Loui- 

siana,deprecated disunion, and wentto the extent 

Louisiana. i^ -, ■> • 

or declaring that " all attempts at disunion or 
consolidation" would be " met by the powers and, if neces- 
sary, by the arms of an indignant public." On the con- 
trary. Governor Giles, of Virginia, spoke of " these compli- 
cated usurpations," having reference to tariff and internal 
improvement legislation. In his message to the Alabama 

Lec^islature, Governor Murphy observed that the 

Alabama. o ' i^ J 

only remedy for present distress was to begin 

manufacturing in the South. He opposed the dissolution 

of the Union. Governor Metcalfe, of Kentucky. 

Kentucky. . • . ' "^ ' 

" deplored the disaffection to the government 
of the Union which had recently manifested itself among 
some of the brethren of the South." The constitutional 

^ Mies' s Register, September 6, 20, 1828. 

* Raleigh Register, quoted by Niles's Register, September 13, 1828. 
^ Niles's Register, and quotations, September 20, 1828. 

* Ealeigh Register, December 12, same year. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 149 

power to protect industry was maintained in Governor 
Kent's message to the Maryland Legislature, the very last of 
the year.^ 

The focus of the excitement over the tariff 
was in South Carolina. McDuffie addressed four thousand 
persons at Abbeville on the 25th of September. ^^ , 

^ ^ ^ The focus of the 

The resolutions adopted led off with a declara- excitement m 
tion of love for the Union, but of abhorrence ^'^th Carolina. 
to the tariff. They urged relief only through " constitutional 
measures." Having been accused by a writer in a local news- 
paper of a number of disunion projects and arrangements in 
common with other members of the South Carolina delega- 
tion in the Congress, Senator Robert Y. Hayne replied, under 
date of October 24, 1828, denying most unequivocally that 
there was ever held at his residence in Washington or any- 
where else, to his knowledge, any meeting on the subject of 
the dissolution of the Union, or that any such question was 
ever proposed or decided at any meeting at Themeetingsat 
which he was present or had knowledge. His Hayne's resi- 
very circumstantial statement denied positively 
that any proposition was ever submitted to the South Carolina 
delegation to the effect that the members should immediately 
abandon their seats, return home, and thereby end all further 
political connection with the government of the United 
States. His last emphatic denial was that any determina- 
tion was ever made that the members on their return should 
visit their constituents and inculcate amonsr them such doc- 
trines and principles as should induce them to agree to and 
advocate a separation of the States, or that any proposition- 
to that effect was ever submitted by any member of the- 
delegation. He said that a meeting was held at the time at 
his house, but that its object was to concert what action 
should be taken on a proposition made by a Southern mem- 
ber, not from South Carolina, to protest against the tariff 
bill to Congress. Mr. Hayne, whose high character gives- 
authority for a statement substantiated by his colleagues^ 

* Niks' s Register, December 20, 1828 ; January 3, 1829. 



150 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

adds that the members of the delegation resolved to allay 
whatever excitement might exist among their constituents. 
He declares that he and his colleagues have been actuated 
by a desire " not to destroy but to restore the Constitution." * 
Thomas R. Mitchell, an anti-nullification member from the 
State, in the same newspaper contradicted Hayne's state- 
ments, and claimed that only by the refusal of Colonel 
Drayton was the adoption of the alleged propositions 
defeated, Judge Smith, the other Senator, not having been 
present, and he (Mitchell) having also opposed the scheme. 
Drayton, he said, opposed the proposition to withdraw from 
Congress. Georgia alone of the States agreed to unite with 
them in a protest. But Mitchell intheeame communication 
proclaimed that he had " never suspected either the princi- 
ples or course" of the Calhoun party, and was not in their 
confidence.^ Hayne's statements were corroborated in all 
essential points by Representatives Martin, Dra^'ton, Hamil- 
ton, and Carter. The conference, or rather conferences, for 
there were two meetings at Hayne's residence, were for the 
purpose of seeing what should be done personally by the 
delegation, and as to what steps might be rendered neces- 
sary at a later time, but not distinctly for a dissolution of the 
Union. While there were no propositions looking to dis- 
union, there was some private conversation on the effects of 
a dissolution if it were regarded as necessary. On this topic 
Hayne did not utter a word. Hamilton denied the power 
of coercion.* The latter admitted in the card which he 
printed that they " all appeared to be under a very high 
degree of excitement," and that he announced his " deter- 
mination to withdraw," but was induced by Hayne, Dray- 
ton, McDufSe, and Martin to reconsider. The resources of 
the State and her power of resistance were mentioned in 
the course of the conferences.^ Mitchell seemed to enter 

^ Nilee's Register, November 15. 

* Senator Hayne replied sharply to Mitchell in the Charleston Patriot. 
The latter seems to have had some personal grudge against Calhoun. 
His rejoinder to Hayne is very weak. Niles's Register, December 6. 

' This is Drayton's statement. * Hamilton's statement. 



THE DEBATE OF 1S30 AND OTHER EVENTS. 151 

with ardor into the arrangements that were there discussed. 
It would appear upon a fall review that no formal proposi- 
tion for disunion was debated or decided upon; but the 
whole matter of the tariff and the State's duty in the prem- 
ises was considered. ^ 

The tone of the aggressive party grew bolder towards 
the end of the year. Hamilton, in a speech at 
Walterborough, said that nullification was the i^^^rea-sed boid- 
rightful remedy. But he concluded by givmg gressive pany 
" the Constitution" as his toast. It was charged !" ^°"*^ ^^''^ 

o lina. 

and denied that secret meetings in the interest 
of disunion were held in Charleston, and the anti-nullifica- 
tion press asserted that in Richmond the subject of a disso- 
lution of the Union was discussed in private circles. There 
can be no doubt that a strong nullification feeling pervaded 
the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia.^ 

One feature of the times was the charge by the low-tariff 
papers, North as well as South, that the Adams administra- 
tion fanned the excitement in South Carolina in order to 
bolster a sinking administration and party .^ 

The South Carolina Legislature met in December.* The 
resolutions offered on the crisis were many and ^ 

•^ ^ December. 

variant. Preston's declared that the tariff was south Carolina 
unconstitutional and was to be met by nullifica- legislature. 
tion and resistance ; Legare's, that it was unjust and oppres- 
sive, but that no convention ought to be called and no acts 
of nullification framed ; Smith's, that the act was unconsti- 
tutional, but the resolution deplored extreme measures, and 
urged the governor to call the legislature in special session. 

' All of these cards or statements were reprinted in Niks' s Register, No- 
vember 22, 1828. The National Intelligencer accepted Hayne's disclaimer 
that there was a disunion meeting, but appeared to think that Mitchell's 
account was otherwise correct, November 6, 11. 

^ The National Intelligencer of August 30 accepts the denial of the 
Charleston Mercury that such meetings were ever held in that city. 
The Union paper at Charleston, the Gazette, said that secret conferences 
were held, but did not allege disunion as their object. 

' Richmond Enquirer, New York Courier and Enquirer, for June, 1828. 

* Governor Taylor had refused to call a special session in July. 



152 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

A proposition in the nature of a compromise was offered 
by Gregg, and adopted. It was in part a dignified and 
temperate protest addressed to the United States 
^se^^Xpted! Senate, and also in part a request for co-opera- 
A dignified pro- ^ion bv the " sister States." The action of the 

test. 

Georgia Legislature was not so moderate.^ 
The excitement in South Carolina steadily increased dur- 
ing 1829. " The signs of the times are portentous," was 
the expression of a New York paper in sympa- 
thy with the anti-tariff agitation.^ A Charles- 
ton newspaper had made the suggestion that a convention 
of all the States for the purpose of revising the 

Proposition for . . i n i i i i i • 

a convention of Constitutiou should DC held, and it was ap- 
au the states, proved by the New York inquirer and Evening 
Post, the Albany Argus, and the Richmond Enquirer. The 
Legislative Committee in Virginia reported elaborately upon 
the resolutions from South Carolina and Georgia concern- 
ing the tariff and the powers of the general government. 
The first resolution adopted by the legislature of Virginia 
declared the right of the State to construe mooted powers ; 
the second, that this right was to be exercised as Virginia 
had ever done, with just respect and forbearance for the 
rights of other States ; the third resolution condemned the 
tariff of 1828 as unauthorized by the Constitution, impoli- 
tic, and oppressive, and called for its repeal. 

Other political events of that year were the inauguration 
of President Jackson's administration, many 

The inaugura- ^ o m i • • i . • i 

tion. Proposed Tcmovals irom oince, and some criminal trials 
acquisition of of office-holders Under the former President ; a 
discussion in the newspapers over the proposed 
acquisition of Texas, a considerable settlement of people 
from the United States having been formed in Austin ; the 
Virginia Constitutional Convention, where the question of 
slavery was debated and the possibility of a dissolution of 
the Union was occasionally alluded to. 

^.Both protests were printed in the Richmond Enquirer, December 30, 
1828. 
' New York Evening Post, January 6, 1829. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 153 

In the Virginia Constitutional Convention the subject of 
slavery was discussed in its bearing on the question of rep- 
resentation in the legislature. The body was ^hevi m 
organized on the 5th of October. Mr. Madison constitutional 
having declined the honor, Mr. Monroe was ^°"^®""°"- 
chosen president nem. con., and was conducted to his seat 
by Messrs. Madison and Marshall.^ Of ninety members 
elected all except six were present on the first day. The 
convention proceeded daily with its task of forming a new 
constitution for the State. It was a body of men, most of 
whom were eminent for services to the State and nation, of 
great dignity, character, and intelligence, and the proceed- 
ings throughout the long session were notable for their order 
and harmony.^ Of the committee of twenty- four appointed 
on the 7th of October, nearly every member was an eminent 
man. Among these members were Madison, Marshall, 
Randolph, Giles, Roane, Tazewell, and John Y. Mason. 

The principal difficulty of the convention was the equali- 
zation of burdens on slave property and its connection 
with representation.' The report of the Legis- g^^^^ property 
lative Committee was made on the 24th of and representa- 
October. Propositions were offered for free 
white suffrage and for free suffrage for those twenty-three 
years old. General debate opened two days later. The 
speeches of Cooke and Green, on the 27th of October, in- 
dicate fairly the temper and ability of the discussion. The 
former gentleman advocated the basis of an exclusive white 
representation, and insisted that it was in accordance with 

* Monroe was elected on motion of Madison. The illness of Mr. Mon- 
roe caused his resignation on the 12th of December, both of the presi- 
dency and of membership. To the former Philip P. Barbour was chosen 
unanimously. 

^ " We have never seen a deliberative body whose proceedings have 
been characterized by so much dignity and order, — none which is more 
calculated to impress every spectator with respect and admiration." — 
Editorial in Richmond Enquirer, October 17. 

* Doddridge showed, on the 21st of October, that the numbers charged 
with the land tax were about 92,000 ; with property tax, 95,000. Tlie 
femmes soles were seventeen per cent. These and minors were to other 
residents as 9 to 1. 



154 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the principles of Jefferson, which he and his compeers 
could not carry out, but which could at last be rendered 
October 26. effective. His argument was from the natural 

General debate, justice to the civic policj. Green contended 
that there could be no objection to such a basis if the ma- 
jority had an interest in always doing what was right. But 
the danger was in the steady increase of the non-property- 
holding classes. At a later day it was said that the propo- 
sition for a white representation was as old as 1790. Among 
the speakers were Messrs. Upshur and Doddridge, the latter 
for and the former against exclusive white representation. 
P. P. Barbour seemed to demonstrate that if 

October 29. 

the argument from the Bill of Rights and the 
law of nature were correct, the emancipation of the slaves 
would follow as a necessary consequence. With character- 
istic severity of logic, he asked, " Is it not a solecism to say 
that rights which have their bearing only as a consequence 
of government are to be controlled by principles depending 
on a state of things antecedent to government?" Mr. 
Monroe deplored divisions on the subject of representation, 
and favored a white basis for the House of Delegates and a 
mixed basis for the Senate. On the 3d of No- 
vember Naylor lamented the evil of slavery, 
but declared that he was opposed to immediate emancipa- 
tion. Leigh said, a few days later, that slave-owners de- 
manded the same security for their property that the South 
did of the North in the Constitution. Gov- 

November 9 -• 

ernor Giles averred that his feelings were much 
excited by the mere allusion in Mr. Monroe's speech to the 
possibility of the Federal government rendering aid in the 
emancipation of slaves. Randolph spoke against the white 
basis on the 14th of November. Madison and Monroe 
preferred the white basis for the House of Delegates and 
the Federal basis for the Senate, Marshall and Leigh the 
Federal basis for both houses.^ 

^ But Madison, on the 16th of November, voted for Leigh's plan for a 
Federal basis for the House of Delegates ; Monroe voted in the negative 
on that proposition. 



THE DEBATE OF 18S0 AND OTHER EVENTS. 155 

Leigli's proposition, providing for a Federal basis for the 
House of Delegates, was rejected, as were likewise several 
others, among them Pleasants's for a Senate on the white 
and a House of Delegates on the Federal basis. The fight 
now seemed to be between the plans of Upshur and Cooke, 
— the Federal basis in both houses, or only in the Senate. 
Cooke and some of his party had modified their demand, 
but others refused to accept less than a white basis for both 
House and Senate. Somewhat later Upshur supported res- 
olutions ofl:ered by Gordon, which were different from his 
own in the proportion of members allowed the eastern and 
western sections of the State, the Blue Ridge being the 
dividing line. But the whole question of apportionment 
was referred to the committee, on the final ^^^ Virginia 
draft, of which Madison was chairman.^ The constiiution 
subject excited much attention in the closing ^ ^^^ ■ 
days of the session. The new constitution was adopted on 
the 14th of January.^ 



^ Doddridge was appointed, but declined the honor. Madison made 
the report. The apportionment of members of the legislature was re- 
committed. 

* Article III. of the Virginia Constitution of 1830 states that the House 
of Delegates shall contain 134 members, elected annually, for and by the 
several counties, cities, towns, and boroughs of the Commonwealth, 
whereof 31 delegates shall be chosen for and by the fourteen counties 
lying between the Alleghany and Blue Ridge Mountains, 42 for and by 
the twenty-nine counties lying east of the Blue Ridge and above tide- 
water, and 36 for and by the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs lying 
upon tide-water. It prescribes that the Senate shall consist of 32 mem- 
bers, of whom 13 shall be chosen for and by the counties lying west of the 
Blue Ridge, and 19 for and by the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs 
lying east thereof ; and for the election of whom the counties, cities, etc., 
shall be divided into thirty-two districts. Reapportionment once in ten 
years is provided for ; but the number of delegates and the numlier of 
senators from the aforesaid great districts are not to be increased, but 
only the separate counties, etc. , in accordance with increase of popula- 
tion in the same for the purpose of securing adequate representation in 
the House of Delegates. The number of delegates shall not exceed 150. 
nor that of senators 36. The provisions of the constitution are too 
elaborate for full statement here. They comprise the terms of the 
compromise in the convention. 



156 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

In the opening days of the Congress, session of 1829-30, 
a question arose in the Senate which, on its face, bore no 

• r^ono mark of the importance that attached to the 

Session of 1829- ^ _ 

30. The Foot discussion which immediately followed. The 
resolution. resolution of Foot, of Connecticut, oftered on 
the 29th of December, related entirely to public lands.^ It 
provided that the Committee on Public Lands be instructed 
to report as to the expediency of limiting for a certain 
period the sales of public lands to such as had heretofore 
been oftered for sale and were subject to entry at the mini- 
mum price, and also as to whether the ofiice of surveyor- 
general might not be abolished without detriment to the 
public interest. While it is not proposed in the present 
volume to discuss the general question of the public lands, 
this debate is so closely related to the events we are study- 
ing as not only to justify but also to compel consideration 
here of the great constitutional points involved. Foot 
stated that the Land Commissioner's returns of the last 
session showed that there were seventy-two million acres 
at the minimum price of one dollar and twenty-five cents 
which remained unsold. The commissioner said that the 
annual demand would probably be a million acres. Benton 
contended that it was not a fit subject for enquiry. " The 
Senator from Connecticut shakes his head," commented the 
Missouri Senator, " but he cannot shake the conviction out 
of my head that a check of Western emigration will be the 
effect of this resolution. The West is my country, not his ; 

1 know it, he does not." After further remarks by several 
Senators, the subject was postponed.^ Discussion was re- 

1830. sumed on the 13th of January, 1830. The 

January 13. movcr of the rcsolutiou expressed surprise that 
an enquiry should be made a special order. The yeas and 
nays were ordered.^ The debate which followed was par- 
ticipated in by Kane, of Illinois, Barton, of Missouri, 
McKinley, of Alabama, and Holmes, Foot, and Benton.* 

' Register of Debates (vol. xxi.) of Twenty -first Congress, p. 3. 
2 Ibid., p. 7. » Ibid., p. 11. * Ibid., pp. 11-16. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 157 

The "Western members did not all oppose the proposed 
investigation, but they wished the surveys and sales to pro- 
ceed, and declared, without exception, that they were hostile 
to any check to emigration westward. Some of them dis- 
claimed, others advocated the theory that the sovereignty 
of the lands rested in the new States. Benton „ , , 

Benton's speech 

made a powerful speech on the 18th of Janu- of the isth of 
ary.^ He said that the resolution presented *°"'^''y- 
three distinct propositions : 1, to stop the surveying of the 
public land ; 2, to limit the sales of the land now in mar- 
ket ; 3, to abolish all the offices of the surveyors-general. 
The effect of these propositions would be : 1, to check 
emigration to the new States and Territories ; 2, to limit 
their settlement; 3, to deliver up large portions of them to 
the dominion of wild beasts; 4, to remove all the land rec- 
ords from the new States. In Missouri, he averred, the sur- 
render would be equal to two-thirds of the State. As to the 
enquir}^, he remarked, " I take my stand upon a great moral 
principle, — that it is never right to enquire into the expedi- 
ency of doing wrong." ^ The enquiry would cause alarm 
and agitation at the South and West. It was not only un- 
just to the new States, but partial and unequal in its opera- 
tions among them. He argued that the eft'ort was due to 
the desire of the manufacturers to have people to work for 
poor wages who wished to go to the West and procure 
lands.^ He repeated Monroe and Grayson's account of the 
attempt in 1786 to surrender the Missouri River to the 
Spaniards, and showed that it was prevented by Southern 
votes in the Congress. He also recited the history of the 
clause in the act of 1785 requiring all land to be sold in any 
township before additional land should be offered for sale. 
He said that while Virginia was surrendering great territo- 
ries Massachusetts yielded only a barren claim, reserving 
thirty thousand square miles which she held in the North- 
east. She was now, he declared, selling this at five to 



^ Register of Debates (vol. xxi.) of Twenty-first Congress, pp. 22-27. 
^ Ibid., p. 23. * Ibid., p. 24. 



158 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

twenty-five cents an acre/ On the following day Holmes 
made an adroit reply to the charge that the N'orth was un- 
Hoimes's reply friendly to the "West. He claimed that the rapid 
to Benton. growth of the latter section, especially of the 

State of Missouri, admitted by Eastern votes, refuted the 
assertion.^ "Woodbury effected a flank movement upon 
db ef- Foot by proposing an amendment extending the 
fects a flank investigation into the expediency of hastening 
movement. ^j^^ survcys and sales of land. Barton favored 
and Foot opposed the amendment. As the debate pro- 
gressed it was assumed by the speakers in opposition that 
the resolution was unfriendly to the growth of the Western 
States.^ 

In the course of a protracted introduction, Hayne said 
that if the gentlemen who had discussed the resolution had 
Hayne's first confiucd their remarks strictly to the subject 
speech. jjc would havc spared the Senate the trouble of 

listening to him on the occasion.* There were two parties 
in the country on the policy, past and future, of the govern- 
ment as to public lands. Either we are regarded, he pro- 
ceeded, as weak, indulgent parents or hard taskmasters. 
He would content himself with noticing one or two partic- 
ulars in relation to which it had long appeared to him that 
the "West had cause for complaint. The plan had been 
pursued invariably of selling certain portions of the lands 
from time to time at the highest market price, and, until a 
few years past, on long credits. Nations who had colonized 
the North American continent — English, French, and Span- 
iards — had required of purchasers only a penny or a pepper- 
corn.' " It is said, sir, that we learn from our own misfor- 
tunes how to feel for the sufferings of others ; and perhaps 
the present condition of the Southern States has served to 
impress more deeply on my own mind the grievous oppres- 
sion of a system by which the wealth of a country is drained 
oft' to be expended elsewhere. Nearly the whole of our 



» Register of Debates, p. 26. ' Ibid., p. 28. 

3 Ibid., p. 30, and other pages. * Ibid., p. 31. « Ibid., p. 32. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 159 

contributions is expended abroad; we stand towards the 
United States in the relation of Ireland to England. The 
fruits of our labor are drawn from us to enrich other and 
more favored sections of the Union, while with one of the 
finest climates and richest products in the world, furnishing 
with one-third of the population two-thirds of the whole ex- 
port of the country, we exhibit the extraordinary, the won- 
derful, and painful spectacle of a country enriched by the 
bounty of God, but cursed by the cruel policy of man. The 
rank grass grows in our streets ; our very fields are scathed 
by the hand of injustice and oppression. Such, sir, though 
probably in a less degree, must have been the effects of a 
similar policy on the fortunes of the West."* He defined 
the irreconcilable opinions on the subject of the public 
lands and the future policy in connection therewith of the 
government. " On the one side it is contended that the 
public land ought to be reserved as a permanent fund for 
revenue and future distribution among the States ; while on 
the other, it is insisted that the whole of these lands of 
right belong to and ought to be relinquished to the States 
in which they lie." He questioned the policy of converting 
these lands into a great source of revenue. 
"Certain it is," he said, " that all the efforts should not be a 
heretofore made for this purpose have most sig- source of rev- 
nally failed." He spoke of the harshness of such 
proceeding, and of schemes for roads, canals, schools, etc. 
It was a permanent treasure not drawn from the people's 
pockets, not promotive of the public welfare. He alluded 
to the temptations to which it would expose " our national 
rulers." ^ It was, he said, a fund for corruption. " It would 
enable Congress and the executive to exercise a control 
over States as well as over great interests in the country — 
nay, even over corporations and individuals — utterly de- 
structive of the purity and fatal to the duration of our 
institutions." Like Benton, he referred to the report of 
Secretary Rush, and expressed his great abhorrence and de- 

* Kegister of Debates, p. 33. ' Ibidem. 



160 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

testation of the proposition to check the sales of public lands 
in order to keep the poorer class of laborers in the Eastern 
manufactories.^ He waived present consideration of what 
he called numerous and powerful objections to the plan of 
State distribution of lands, — a subject recently discussed in 
the House and shortly to be taken up in the Senate. He 
thought that the claims of sovereignty over the lands made 
His plan hinted ^y Indiana and Alabama were inadmissible, and 
^*- seemed to prefer to others a plan of relinquish- 

ment to the States at something more than a nominal price.' 
Foot, on the 20th of January, modified his resolution, 
as suggested by Sprague, to meet the views expressed by 

Woodbury. But the event of that day in the 

anuary . digcuggiou was the spcech of Webster.^ As 

usual, his opening remarks were brief and led immediately 

to the matter in hand. His compendious statement of the 

main question was admirable. He said, " There 

Webster. 

are more lands than purchasers. It is obvious 
that no artificial regulation, no forcing of sales, no giving 
away of the lands even, can produce any great and sudden 
augmentation. My own opinion has uniformly been that 
the public lands should be ofi"ered freely and at low prices.'* 
He argued that speculation on a large scale should not be 
encouraged and vast quantities of the land should not be 
thrown on the market, reducing prices to nothing. Reply- 
ing to Hayne's attack on the policy of the gov- 

Replies to , , ii-ti 

Hayne on the emmcut towards purchasers, he denied alto- 
govemment's gether that there had been anything harsh or 

land pohcy. ^ . ./ o 

severe in that policy towards the ten States of 
the West. On the contrary, he maintained that it had uni- 
formly pursued towards those States a liberal and enlight- 
ened system, such as its own duty allowed and required, 
and such as their welfare demanded. He also denied the 
analogy with the original ISTorth American colonists. " Gen- 
erally speaking," said Mr. Webster, " they derived neither 
succor nor protection from the governments at home." 

» Register of Debates, p. 34. « Ibid., p. 35. ^ i^id., pp. 35-41. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 161 

But he claimed that the government of the United States 
had made, from the first, the protection of these communi- 
ties the leading objects of policy, laying special stress upon 
the protection from Indians and the purchase of Indian 
titles.^ The public lands had been derived from four prin- 
cipal sources. First, cessions made by individual States to 
the United States on the recommendation of the old Con- 
gress. Second, the compact with Georgia in 1802, Third, 
the purchase of Louisiana. Fourth, the purchase of Florida. 
He examined " the causes and occasions" of the grants by 
the States, to show that they were for the common benefit 
of existing and future States. " The gentleman," he ob- 
served, " admits that the lands cannot be given away until 
the national debt is paid, because to a part of the debt they 
stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There 
is, so to speak, an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was 
funded, at the moment of the cession of the lands, and by 
the very terms of that cession, every State in the Union 
obtained an interest in them, as in a common fund. Con- 
gress has uniformly adhered to this condition." He said 
that the government had not felt itself at liberty to dispose 
of the soil in large masses to individuals, thus leaving to 
them the time and manner of settlement. Who could say 
what mischiefs would have ensued if Congress had thrown 
these Territories into the hands of private speculation ? ^ 

Webster said that he had heard not without regret and 
pain the sentiments of the honorable member (Hayne) in 
wishing that the government might never have a permanent 
source of revenue, and his claim that this would consolidate 
the government and corrupt the people. He knew that such 
opinions were entertained outside, but he did not expect so 
soon to find them here. Consolidation ! that „ ^ . . ,^ 

He bnngs in the 

perpetual cry, both of terror and delusion, — topic of the 
consolidation ! In this passage he appears to ^^^°^- 
go out of his way to bring in the topic of the Union, or rather 
of its opposite, disunion. He avows his devotion to what he 



1 Register of Debates, p. 36. ' Ibid., p. 37. 

11 



162 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

calls " General "Washington's consolidation, . . . the true 
constitutional consolidation." He averred that he could not 
but regret the expression of such opinions as the gentleman 
had expressed, because their tendency was to weaken the 
bond of union. ^ Conveniently ignoring his own position, 
that of his adopted State, and that of his section in the war 
of 1812, he proceeded : " The tendency of all these ideas and 
sentiments is obviously to bring the Union into discussion 
as a mere question of present and temporary expediency, — 
nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss." He 
claimed that such persons " cherished no deep and fixed 
regard for the Union." On another point he was suspicious 
and aggressive. He charged that there was a disposition to 
rejoice at the early extinguishment of the debt on account 
of the supposed incidental tendencies and efiects of the 
debt. While he would not continue the debt for the sake 
of any collateral or consequential advantage, — "a tie hold- 
ing different parts of the Union together by considerations 
of mutual interests," — he meant to say that that consequence 
itself was not one that he regretted.^ He contradicted the 
sum total and the detail of what Hayne had said of Eastern 
The East and scltishness.^ " But the tarifiT! the tariff"!" he 
thetariflf. exclaimcd. "Sir, I beg to say, in regard to 

the East, that the original policy of the tariff" is not hers, 
whether it be wise or unwise. It was truly more a Southern 
than an Eastern measure. And what votes carried the tariff 
of 1824? Certainly not those of New England. It is 
known to have been made matter of reproach, especially 
against Massachusetts, that she would not aid the tariff of 
1824, and a selfish motive was imputed to her for that 
also."* In this speech Mr. Webster asserted 
that l^athan Dane, of Massachusetts, drew the 
anti-slavery ordinance of 1787 and that it was adopted by 
the Congress, as he had understood, without the slightest 
alteration. He proclaimed its exclusion of involuntary 
servitude " a great and salutary measure of prevention." 

^ Register of Debates, p. 38. ^ Ibid., p. 38. 

^ Bentou had said even more. * Register of Debates, p. 39. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 163 

He affirmed that it was carried by the North, and by the 
North alone.^ One of his most eiFective points was in tlie 
quotations which he made from a debate in the House in 
1825 with McDuffie, on the subject of the Western road, 
where the Southern leader advocated limiting government 
sales of land.^ Webster concluded by moving the indefinite 
postponement of the resolution. Benton replied. 

On Thursday, the 21st of January, Chambers, saying that 
Webster had " unavoidable engagements out of the Senate," 
endeavored to procure a postponement of the debate. But 
Hayne was unwilling that the subject should be postponed. 
He remarked that he saw the gentleman (Web- 

\ • 1 • T 11 11 January 21. 

ster) m his seat, and presumed he could arrange Ha)Tie's second 
to be present that day. He (Hayne) would not ^p^®^^- 
deny that some things had fallen from that gentleman which 
rankled here (touching his breast) from which he would 
desire at once to relieve himself. The gentleman had dis- 
charged his fire in the face of the Senate. He (Hayne) 
hoped he would now afford him the opportunity of return- 
ing the shot. " I am ready to receive it," replied Webster. 
"Let the discussion proceed."' After Benton had con- 
cluded his remarks, begun on the preceding day, Hayne 
took the floor to reply to Webster. He spoke for about an 
hour and resumed on the following Monday, when he ad- 
dressed the Senate for two hours and a half.* Hayne said 
that he had " impeached no man's motives ; he had charged 
no party. State, or section with hostility to any other. The 
gentleman from Missouri had charged upon the Eastern 
States an early and continued hostility towards the West, 
and had referred to a number of historical facts and docu- 
ments in support of that charge. The honorable gentleman 
from Massachusetts, after deliberating a whole night upon 
his course, comes into this chamber to vindicate New Eng- 
land, and, instead of making up his issue with the gentle- 
man from Missouri, selects me as his adversary, losing sight 



» Register of Debates, p. 40. * Ibid., pp. 40-41. 

"Ibid., p. 41. *Ibid., p. 43. 



164 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

entirely of the gentleman from Missouri. He goes on to 
assail the institutions and policy of the South, and calls in 
question the principles and conduct of the State which I 
have the honor to represent." Mr. Hayne then said that he 
was bound to believe that the gentleman had some object 
in view which he had not disclosed. Had the gentleman 
discovered in former controversies with the gentleman from 
Missouri that he was overmatched by that gentleman ? and 
does he hope for an easy victory over a more feeble adver- 
sary ? Has the ghost of the murdered Coalition come back, 
like the ghost of Banquo, to " sear the eyeballs" of the gen- 
tleman, and will it not " down at his bidding" ? Hayne 
declared that if "Webster's purpose was to thrust him be- 
tween the gentleman from Missouri and himself, he should 
not be gratified. The South shall not be forced into a con- 
flict not its own. The gallant West needs no aid from the 
South to repel attack from any quarter. Further on Hayne, 
referring to the land policy of the government, said that the 
gentleman had introduced to our notice a certain ITathan 
Dane, of Massachusetts, to whom he attributed the Ordinance 
of 1787. Hayne declared that to such high authority it was 
certainly his duty to submit in a becoming spirit of humility. 
And yet it was unfortunate for the fame of this great legis- 
lator that the gentleman from Missouri should have proved 
that he was not the author of that ordinance. Until yester- 
day Mr. Dane was known to the South only as a member 
of the Hartford Convention. By the second resolution of 
that convention it is declared " that it is expedient to 
attempt to make provisions for restraining Congress in the 
exercise of unlimited power to make new States and admit 
them into the Union." ^ He showed from the speech of 
"Webster's in 1825, quoted by the latter the day before, that 
"Webster " could never think that the national domain was 
to be regarded as any great source of revenue." ^ He con- 
tended, therefore, that Webster had changed his views, as 
he now advocated holding the lands as a " treasure," and 

^ Register of Debates, p. 44. 

•^ Delivered January 18, 1825. Register of Debates, vol. i. p. 251. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 165 

replied to the claim of the latter that the East had shown 
greater friendliness to the West than had the South. "Would 
the gentleman, he asked, have us to manifest our great love 
to the West by trampling under foot our constitutional 
scruples? When the gentleman tells us that the appro- 
priations for internal improvements in the West would in 
almost every instance have failed but for the Eastern votes, 
he has forgotten to tell us the when, the how, and the where- 
fore this new-born zeal for the West sprung up in the 
bosom of New England. If he will look back only a few 
years, he will find in both houses of Congress an uniform 
and steady opposition on the part of the mem- 
bers from the Eastern States generally to all the East to ap- 
appropriations of this character. This was the propriations for 

^•^ ^ the West. 

case at the time that he (Hayne) became a 
member of the Senate, and for some time afterwards.^ A 
wonderful change in this regard took place in New England 
in 1824, while the election of the President was still in 
doubt in the House of Representatives. Referring to the 
payment of the public debt and the passage on the same in 
Webster's speech, Hayne said, " Sir, let me tell that gentle- 
man that the South repudiates the idea that a pecuniary de- 
pendence on.the Federal government is one of the legitimate 
means of holding the States together." He appeared to 
doubt the willingness of Webster and his party to have the 
debt paid off." 2 

One of the most effective parts of Hayne's argument was 
his defence of the South from the charge of weakness im- 
plied in Webster's preference for Ohio over 

. Slavery. 

Kentucky. " Sir," he declared, " we will not 
consent to look at slavery in the abstract. We will not look 
back to enquire whether our fathers were guiltless in intro- 
ducing slaves into this country. Southern ships and South- 
ern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to 
the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the 
profit of that accursed traffic. Finding our lot cast among 

» Eegister of Debates, p. 45. * Ibid., p. 46. 



166 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

« 

a people whom God had manifestly committed to our care, 
we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of 
theoretical liberty. "We met it as a practical question of 
obligation and duty." He described the negroes as an in- 
ferior people, whom it were inhuman to send back to their 
native Africa, there to degenerate, and on account of their 
numbers it was impracticable. He contrasted the free 
blacks of Northern cities with the Southern slaves, to the 
advantage of the latter. Webster w^as asked for proofs of 
Southern weakness.^ 

Hayne quoted a passage from Matthew Carey's Olive 
Branch,^ as follows, but disavowed the sentiments as his 
own : "If a separation were desirable to any part of the 
Union, it would be to the Middle and Southern States, par- 
ticularly to the latter, who have been so long harassed with 
the complaints, the restlessness, the turbulence, and the in- 
gratitude of the Eastern States, that their patience has been 
tried almost beyond endurance." He quoted this to show 
that at a former time dilFerent views had prevailed as to 
the weakness of the Soath. " Whatever difference of 
opinion," he asserted, " may exist as to the effect of slavery 
on national wealth and prosperity, if we may trust to expe- 
rience, there can be no doubt that it never yet has produced 
any injurious effect on individual or national character." 
He pointed to " the Old Dominion, magnanimous Virginia, 
'whose jewels are her sons.' Is there," he asked, "any 
State in this Union which has contributed so much to the 
honor and welfare of the country ?" 

The object of the framers of the Constitution, he averred, 
w^as the consolidation of the Union, not of the government.^ 
The grounds in The grouuds in dispute between the • Senator 
dispute. from Massachusetts and himself were the very 

grounds which had divided parties from the beginning. In 
every age and country there have been two distinct orders 

^ Register of Debates, p. 47. 

* Olive Branch, p, 278. Carey was a Northern writer, the father of 
protection literature in the United States. 

* Register of Debates, p. 48. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 167 

of men, — the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates 
of power. He rallied Webster as to liis sensitiveness on the 
subject of the tariff. At the Boston meeting of 1820 and 
in the House of Representatives in 1824 Webster, he said, 
was the leading actor and the fearless and powerful advocate 
of free trade. On that the proudest day of his life, the 
Senator from Massachusetts, like a mighty giant, bore away 
upon his shoulders the pillars of the temple of error and de- 
lusion, escaping himself unhurt and leaving his adversaries 
overwhelmed in its ruins.^ From the tariff he passed to 
charges of disunion, which, in his own language, he met not 
only at the threshold, but carried war into the enemy's ter- 
ritory. This elaborate statement of the South's 

•^ . . . The South's (le- 

devotion m the Kevolution, to a cause she might votion to the 
have avoided espousing, if she had been less u^^*^"- 
patriotic ; of New England's conduct in 1798 and the war 
of 1812, is possibly the strongest point in all the great de- 
bate in clear demonstration and intense power of sarcasm. 
Hayne deprecated sectionalism, but he charged that Webster 
had made an uncalled-for attack upon the South. His beau- 
tiful tribute to South Carolina was the inspiration of Web- 
ster's to Massachusetts.^ Hayne only " challenged com- 
parison with any other State in the Union." He honored 
New England, but claimed that equal honor was due to the 
South for conduct in the Revolution. He quoted from the 
speech of Josiah Quincy on the admission of Louisiana : 
" If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion," said Quincy, 
" that it is a dissolution of the Union ; that it will free the 
States from their moral obligation ; and as it will be the 
right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare for a 
separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must.'" 
To the New England Democrats, he thought, higher praise 
was due than to the Democrats of the South. He accepted 
Webster's name, " Carolina Doctrine," as applied to the 
views of himself and his friends, and assigned as its basis 
the Virginia resolutions of 1798 and Madison's report on 

' Register of Debates, p. 49. ' Ibid., p. 50. ' Ibid., p. 55. 



168 A HISTORY OF TEE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the subject. Throughout this and the succeeding speech 
Hayne confined himself almost entirely for constitutional 
authorities to these documents, although he referred to Jef- 
ferson and once or twice to Hamilton's fifty-first number of 
the Federalist. The Kentucky resolutions were also quoted 
in part. This second speech of Hayne's was more eloquent 
than the first : there were several passages of great splendor, 
and throughout it was notably elegant. His style was more 
difi'use than Webster's. 

The latter arose immediately to reply, but owing to the 

lateness of the hour yielded the floor for an adjournment. 

On the following day, when the Senate resumed 

Webster's sec- , , . . il /" i . n ' ■, 

ond speech in the discussion, Webster began his lamous reply 
reply to Hayne. ^^ Hayne, — that is to say, his second speech on 
the Foot resolution. He spoke that day until half-past 
three o'clock p.m., but did not conclude his remarks until 
he had spoken three hours on the following day.^ The 
tone of Hayne's speech, derived apparently from the accu- 
sations in the first speech by Webster, seemed to have 
ofi:ended the last-named Senator, who called for the reading 
of the pending resolution, thus endeavoring to bring the 
debate back whence it started. He said that in a two days' 
speech the gentleman from South Carolina had spoken of 
everything but the public lands.^ Webster also alluded in his 
opening remarks to Hayne's observation that he had a shot 
to return. " That shot, sir, which it was kind to inform us 
was coming, that we might stand out of the way or prepare 
ourselves to fall before it and die with decency, has now 
been received. Under all advantages, and with expectation 
awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has been dis- 
charged and has spent its force. It may become me to say 
no more of its effect than that, if nobody is found, after all, 
either killed or wounded by it, it is not the first time in the 
history of human affairs that the vigor and success of the 
war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding 
phrase of the manifesto." Alluding to Hayne's use of the 

» Register of Debates, p. 58. " Ibid., p. 59. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 169 

word " rankling" and his gesture at the time, "Webster 
claimed that he had a great advantage over the gentleman. 
"There is nothing here, sir," tapping his breast with one 
hand, " which gives me the slightest uneasiness ; neither 
fear nor anger nor that which is sometimes more trouble- 
some than either, — the consciousness of having been in 
the wrong." He had received nothing which rankled 
or had in any way given him annoyance. There was 
not quite strength enough in the gentleman's bow to 
BO impel his shafts as to bring them to their mark. He 
avoided Hayne's thrust about eluding Benton by saying 
that he had found " a responsible endorser of the bill and 
did not stop to enquire who was the original drawer." He 
gave an answer, he said, to that speech, which, if unanswer- 
able, was most likely to produce injurious impressions. In 
the oft-quoted passage of this speech of Webster's about 
" matches and overmatches," ^ in which Webster himself 
showed great excitement, he said that Hayne had been ex- 
cited and angry. A Jovian air pervaded the whole speech. 
In the purely personal parts, Webster, by his Webster supe- 
tremendous rhetoric, appeared generally to have rior to Hayne 
had the advantage. Very deftly he turned the parts of the dis- 
Banquo quotation back upon his opponent, cession. 
But Mr. Webster was not happy in his retort as to Dane, 
that the latter was " too near the north star to be reached 
by the gentleman's telescope." Hayne had been exception- 
ally kind in his references to the North and Northern men. 
Another instance of Webster's unfairness in argument when 
under excitement was in a subsequent passage, where he 
accused Hayne, against the latter's express disclaimer in his 
former speech, of defending slavery in the abstract. " There 
is not," said Mr. Webster, continuing, " and never has been a 
disposition in the North to interfere with these (slave) inter- 
ests in the South." ^ Again, " I regard domestic slavery as 
one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political." But 
he left it to those whose right and duty it was to inquire and 

» Eegister of Debates, p. 59. * Ibid., p. 61. 



170 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

to decide whether it were curable, and if so, by what means ; 
or whether it were the vulnus immedicahile of the social system. 
And this he believed uniformly to have been the sentiment 
of the North. He went into the history of the matter to 
show apparently that while some Southern men ^ thought 
that Cono-ress could interfere, a committee of the First 
Congress, composed, except one member from Virginia, of 
Northern men, reported that the subject of domestic slavery 
was not in the authority of the Congress, but in that of the 
States. The North was in a large majority in that house. 
The Ordinance of 1787 encouraged schools by a high and 
binding declaration of the government itself, and first re- 
strained legislative power in questions of private right and 
from impairing the obligation of contracts. He claimed 
that the Journal refuted the attempt which had been made 
to transfer from the North to the South the honor of the 
exclusion of slavery from the Northwest Territory.^ 

"Webster said that the proceedings of the Hartford Con- 
vention were less read and studied in New England than 
farther South as a precedent, but would not answer the 
purpose, — the latitude in which they originated was too 
cold. After some further pleasantry, he observed, " I have 
nothing to do, sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its jour- 
nal, which the gentleman has quoted, I have never read. 
The Hartford So far as the honorable member may discover 
Convention. jjj j^g proceedings a spirit in any degree resem- 
bling that which was avowed and justified in those other 
conventions' to which I have alluded, or so far as these 
proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution 
or tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as any one 
to bestow on them reprehension and censure." * He claimed 
that there was no difierence between his speech of 1825 
and his present views on the subject of the public lands. 
"Sir, a breath blows all this triumph away."^ Webster 

^ Governor Edmund Randolph, for instance. 

* See Benton's reply, further on. 

' Colleton and Abbeville, South Carolina. 

* Register of Debates, p. 62. ^ Ibid., p. 63. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 171 

was unsuccessful in his attempt to fix on Hayne the charge 
of having attacked the East, as a justification of his own 
attack on the South.^ There was nothing in Hayne's 
speech to justify Webster's assault, although there might 
have been in Benton's matter for severe rejoinder to that 
Senator. In reply to Hayne's challenge to show when, 
how, and why New England votes were found cast for 
measures favorable to the West, Webster mentioned two as 
" samples and specimens of all the rest." In 1820, in favor 
of reducing the price of lands, New England gave thirty- 
two of thirty-three votes for it and only one against. Four 
Southern States gave thirty-two votes out of fifty for and 
seven against the proposition. Again, in 1821, on the bill 
for the relief of the purchasers of lands, New England also 
gave more afiirmative votes than the South, with their fifty- 
two or fifty-three members.^ In this passage Webster was 
very sarcastic and his manner was triumphant. 

The war of 1812, he argued^ had rendered a new internal 
policy necessary. He reviewed the powers of 

. -, ^ . . T ^ "6w policy 

the general government in the Constitution, and made necessary 
settled, so far as his own mind was concerned, ^1,^^^ ''^^^ '^^ 
the constitutionality of internal improvements. 
" And now," so he concluded this part of his subject with 
an address to Vice-President Calhoun, " and now I have 
further to say that I made up these opinions . . . and 
entered on this course of political conduct, Teucro duce. 
Yes, sir, I pursued in all this a South Carolina track." 
He said that a leading gentleman of that State was first 
and foremost in behalf of the doctrine of internal improve- 
ment. The tariff of 1816, one of the plain causes of op- 
pression from which if the government did not recede it 
was said independent South Carolina might secede, w^as in 
truth a South Carolina tariff. But for those votes it could 
not have passed in the form in which it did pass ; whereas, 
if it had depended on Massachusetts votes, it w^ould have 
been lost. In triumph he queried, " Does not the honor- 

^ Register of Debates. * Ibid., p. 65. 



172 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

able gentleman well know all this?"^ He said that in six 
years a party had arisen in the South hostile to the policy 
of internal improvements. 

In order to fasten the charge of inconsistency upon Hayne, 
Bandying in retaliation for the latter's citation from the 

consSency ^' <iebate of 1825, Webster arraigned his adver- 
with Hayne. gary for votiug, in April, 1824, for a bill to secure 
the necessary plans, surveys, and estimates upon the subject 
of roads and canals. Although this measure was prelimi- 
nary, Webster said it covered the whole ground. Continu- 
ing, he observed, " I repeat that, up to 1824, 1 for one fol- 
lowed South Carolina ; but when that State in its ascension 
veered off in an unexpected direction, I relied on its light no 
longer." At this point the Vice-President interrupted the 
„^ _ . speaker, — "Does the Chair understand the s^en- 

The Vice-Presi- '^ ' => 

dent asks a tlcmau from Massachusetts to say that the per- 
question. ^^^ ^^^^^ occupyiug the chair of the Senate has 

changed his opinions on the subject of internal improve- 
ments?" Mr. Webster resumed, and replied, "From noth- 
ing ever said to me, sir, have I had reason to know of any 
change in the opinions of the person filling the chair of the 
Senate. If such has taken place, I regret.it. I speak gen- 
erally of the State of South Carolina." He made an elab- 
orate explanation of his own change on the tariff question. 
Of the action in Massachusetts he said, " Our only option 
was to fall in with this settled course of public 

Defence of the i- t t j i n 

action of Mas- policy and accommodate ourselves as well as 
sachusetts on ^g could, or to embrace the South Carolina 
doctrine and talk of nullifying the statute by 
State interference." ^ He referred to his speech of 1824, de- 
clined to restate his reasons for voting against the bill of 
that year, and cited the latest views of Madison on the 
tariff question, by which he was greatly impressed. 

The weakest part of Webster's second speech, perhaps, 
was that which was necessarily so, — the reply to Hayne's 
strongest point, the disunion sentiment in New England just 

1 Register of Debates, p. 67. ' Ibid., p. 69. 



THE DEBATE OF ISSO AND OTHER EVENTS. 173 

preceding and pending the war of 1812.^ He did not un- 
dertake a particular statement, but made a scornful general 
denial. " Why, sir, he has stretched a drag-net 
over the whole surface of perished pamphlets, ^^sne. 
indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular 
addresses; over whatever the pulpit in its moments of 
alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extrava- 
gance have severally thrown off in time of general excite- 
ment and violence." In this indignant strain, entirely 
forgetful of what he had said of " the learned doctors of' 
Colleton and Abbeville," the great Senator proceeded to 
justify the Federal party in New England by the abuse of 
President Washington by the Republicans. His pungent 
reference to the process " by which the whole Essex Junto 
could in one hour be all washed white from their ancient 
Federalism" was one of the best sarcasms with which the 
whole discussion was scintillant, because it was apropos of 
the political situation of the time.^ 

After a brilliant passage on the devotion and heroism of 
Massachusetts in the Revolution, he presented a full exposi- 
tion of his own views of constitutional construction.^ A 
colloquy between Webster and Hayne shows 

..•'■•'.• "^ Colloquy be- 

vividly the difference between the two schools tween webster 
they represented. Webster knew no right of '^^^ Hayne. 
resistance but popular revolution. Hayne did not contend 
for " the mere right of revolution, but for the right of con- 
stitutional resistance." Webster " so understood the gentle- 
man. What he contends for is that it is constitutional to 
interrupt the administration of the Constitution itself." 
Webster did not deny the inherent right of the people to 
reform their government, and, he said, " they have another 
right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without 
overturning the government. It is no doctrine of mine 
that unconstitutional laws bind the people. But I do not 
admit that under the Constitution and in conformity with 
it there is any mode in which a State government as a 

1 Register of Debates, pp. 70-72. ' Ibid., p. 70. » Ibid., p. 72. 



174 A BISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

member of the Union can interfere and stop the progress 
of the general government, by force of her own laws, under 
any circumstances whatever." ^ Enquiring into the origin 
and nature of the government, he found that it was not the 
asrent of the State governments, but the creature 

Origin and na- ^ ^ 

ture of the gov- of the pcoplc. " We are all agents of the same 
emment. supreme powcr, the people. The general gov- 

ernment and the State governments derive their authority 
from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, 
be called primary, though one is definite and restricted and 
the other general and residuary."^ He everywhere set up 
the sovereignty of the whole people over the sovereignty 
of the State governments, — even the absolute sovereignty of 
the majority, irrespective of State lines. He asserted that 
New England opinion as to the unconstitutionality of the 
Embargo Act never reached the point of advocating dis-' 
union.^ He said that the Virginia resolutions of 1798 
were " not a little indefinite." They meant, he thought, 
complaint and remonstrance and only contended for a 
general right of revolution. In this passage he remarked 
frequently that the Federal government was not the creature 
of the State legislatures. The Supreme Court under the 
Constitution was to decide in questions of conflict between 
States and Federal government. The remedy of the people, 
if they had made an injudicious or inexpedient distribution 
of power between the State governments and the general 
government, was to alter that distribution by constitutional 
amendment.* Then came a grand outburst, rarely equalled 
even by himself, on the value of the Union and the indis- 
soluble connection of liberty and Union.^ 

On the same day Hayne made his third argument. He 

claimed that he arose simply to correct some 

Hayne's third „yqq^ errors iuto which the gentleman from 

argument. t' o 

Massachusetts had fallen. The personal points 
are less numerous and the argument more logical than Web' 



^ Register of Debates, p. 73. ' Ibid., p. 74. 

« Ibid,, p. 76. * Ibid., p. 79. » Ibid., pp. 79, 80. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 175 

ster's, to which it was a reply. Much of the same ground 
was covered that was embraced in his previous speeches. 
Some of his solemn denials must be recorded as a part of 
the history of the discussion. " I said nothing thatcould 
be tortured into an attack upon the East." Elsewhere : 
" The gentleman put the phrase, ' accursed taritf,' into my 
mouth." ^ His rejoinder to Webster's remarks on McDuffie's 
position on internal improvements and public lands is per- 
haps insufficient. He said that if Mr. McDuffie still held 
these opinions, the people of South Carolina did not.^ 
Hayne's reply to Webster's thrusts upon the inconsistenc}' 
of South Carolina as regarded the tariff question was very 
ingenious, A great mistake, he said, prevailed as to the 
tariff of 1816. That was not a bill for in- Explains the 
creasing, but one for reducins; duties. Durino- tariff of isie 

°' * * and South Caro- 

the war double duties had been resorted to for lina-s part in its 
raising the revenue necessary for its prosecution, ^^'^'^t™^^*- 
Manufactures had sprung up under the protection inci- 
dentally afforded by the restrictive measures and the war. 
On the restoration of peace a scale of duties was to be es- 
tablished adapted to the situation in which the country was 
bv that event placed. All agreed that the duties were to 
be reduced gradually. There was a debt of $140,000,000 
or $150,000,000. Admonished by recent experience, a navy 
was to be built and an extensive system of fortifications was 
to be commenced. The operation of a sudden reduction 
was to be considered. He further said that the bill was re- 
ported by the lamented Lowndes, a steady opponent of the 
protecting system ; and he stated its provisions to confirm 
his claim that it was a revenue restriction measure. The 
provisions of ensuing tariffs were also stated. " Suppose, 
sir," he proceeded, " the New England gentlemen were now 
to join the South in going back to a tariff for revenue and 
were to propose to us gradually to reduce all of the existing 
duties, so that they should come down in two or three years 
to fifteen or twenty per cent., would the gentlemen consider 



Register of Debates, p. 83. * Ibidem. 



176 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

US as sending in an adhesion to the American system by 
voting for such a reduction ? And if not, how can they 
charge the supporters of the tariff of 1816 with being the 
fathers of that system?"^ Expressing dissent from the 
bonus measure, he said that if the system of improvements 
had been conducted on the principles of that bill much of 
the inequality and injustice that had since taken place 
would have been avoided. But he was by no means dis- 
posed to deny that a considerable change on the subject of 
internal improvements had taken place in the Southern 
States, and particularly South Carolina, since the measure 
was first broached. As a new question, hardly examined 
and little understood, the people of the South took up the 
belief for a short period that there was to a certain extent, 
under guards, benefits to be confirmed by the system con- 
stitutionally pursued. But before time had been allowed 
for the formation of fixed opinions the evils of the system 
were fully exposed, including most alarming innovations 
on the Constitution, and the South was fully satisfied of its 
injustice and inequality.^ As to his own vote, he observed, 
" Sir, I know that more than one gentleman who voted for 
the survey bill of 1824 expressly stated at the time that 
they did not intend to commit themselves on the general 
question ; and I was one of that number." Hayne has the 
almost unquestioned advantage on the discussion of the 
tariff, but he is not so evidently successful either on the sub- 
ject of the public lands or that of the internal improvement 
system. There are instances in this part of the debate, as 
elsewhere, of "Webster's habit of twisting another's words 
to save himself from reproach. Whenever it suited his pur- 
pose, he invented language and ascribed it to his opponent. 
More than half of Ilayne's final argument was devoted to 
an examination of Webster's views on Federal powers. His 
authorities, as before, were Madison and Jeffer- 

Federal powers. tt j. j. r i x xi • • i' J.^ 

son. He, too, went back to the origm or the 
government, which he found in the independence of the 

' Register of Debates, p. 84. * Ibidem. 



TEE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 177 

individual States before the existence of tlie Constitution. 
He quoted Madison's definition of the nature of the Con- 
stitution, — " a compact to which the States are parties." ^ 
Hayne argued : " Nothing can be clearer than that under 
such a system the Federal government, exercising strictly 
delegated powers, can have no right to act beyond the pale of 
its authority, and that all such acts are void. A State, on 
the contrary, retaining all powers not exprv^ssly given away, 
may lawfully act in all cases where she has not voluntarily 
imposed restrictions on herself. Here, then, is a ease of com- 
pact between sovereigns, and the queadon arises. What is 
the remedy for a clear violation of its express terms by one 
of the parties ?" He answers by a quotation from Madison's 
Report to the Virginia Legislature, page 20 : " That where 
resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the 
compact must themselves be the rightful judge whether the 
bargain has been pursued or violated." He challenged 
Webster to show from the Constitution the grant of claimed 
power in the Federal government to decide ultimately and 
conclusively the extent of its own authority.^ 

While this is the most elaborate, and as an argument of 
high range much the finest portion of Hayne's efibrts during 
this discussion, it must be admitted that he has 

' _ ^ , ■ A blemish on 

confused the question not a little and given a great argu- 
Webster at the close an opportunity to dwell ™®'^*' 
more than the point is worth on that confusion. He had 
been speaking of the Constitution as a compact between 
States. Here he made the compact one between the State 
governments and the general government, — that is, the States 
as organized, — thus putting the creature of one of the parties 
to the compact in place of one of the original parties and the 
creature of the Constitution in place of the others. It was 
a blemish, but not essentially injurious to his main argument 
in favor of ultimate State sovereignty. He was not able to 
extricate himself wholly from the popular misapprehension 
and nomenclature and from the terms of the argument he 



Register of Debates, p. 86. * Ibidem. 

12 



178 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

was endeavoring to refute. Hayne declared, " The whole 
form and structure of the Federal government, the opinions 
of the framers of the Constitution, and the organization of 
the State governments, demonstrate that though the States 
have surrendered certain specific powers they have not sur- 
rendered their sovereignty." This remark was explained 
as relating to other things not included in the general grant. 
The doctrine of the final supremacy of the Federal govern- 
ment, he said, was based on the notion that the States were 
inferior to the mass of people in all of the States. The 
phrase, " We, the people of the United States," referred to 
the people as citizens of the several States and not to the 
mass.^ This was the sense of the word as used in difierent 
parts of the Constitution, and in the State legislatures and 
conventions at the time of the adoption. As to Supreme 
Court jurisdiction, he held that questions of sovereignty 
were not proper subjects of judicial investigation. They 
were much too large and of too delicate a nature to be 
brought within the jurisdiction of a court of justice. 
Courts were the mere creatures of the sovereign power, 
designed to expound and carry into effect its sovereign 
will. The name Supreme Court, he contended, had relation 
to its supremacy over the inferior courts pro- 

The Supreme . . _, 

Court of the vidcd by the Constitution. The Supreme Court 
United states, j^^^ cognizance of cases arising in law and 
equity and treaties. As with regard to treaties, the Supreme 
Court had never assumed jurisdiction over questions arising 
between the sovereigns who are parties to them, so under 
the Constitution they cannot assume jurisdiction over ques- 
tions arising between the individual States and the United 
States. In the case before us, he insisted, there can be no 
pretence that the Supreme Courts have been specially con- 
stituted umpires. Unfit for the high decisions named, much 
more are they disqualified for the umpirage between States 
and United States, because the court is created by, and in- 
deed is one of, the departments of the Federal government.^ 

* Eegister of Debates, p. 86. 

'^ Ibid., p. 88. In strictness this statement is not correct. The 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 179 

If the Supreme Court of the United States, he said, could 
take cognizance of such a question, so could the Supreme 
Courts of the States. But to show that the Supreme Court 
of the United States had no such power he contended that 
from the control of the Federal government over the suh- 
jects of taxation and appropriation the Constitution could 
be violated so that it would be beyond the power of the 
judiciary. The tariff and internal improvements were cited 
as instances. His argument then advanced to the postulate 
that if the Supreme Court had no such power 
of umpirage, the Congress could not have. °TneithJnh^ 
Conceding the latter, the Constitution was a supreme court 
dead letter. The powers of Congress were re- gress is umpire 
stricted by the very terms of the Constitution, between the 

•^ '' states. 

"When, therefore, Congress exceeded these 
terms, their acts were null and void.^ Such acts must be so 
declared by the courts in cases within their jurisdiction, 
and may be pronounced to be so by the States themselves 
in cases not within the jurisdiction of the courts or of 
sufficient importance to justify interference.^ He main- 
tained that the right of States to judge of infractions of 
the Constitution results from the nature of the compact not 
only, but also from express reservation of powers not dele- 
gated. He then considered propositions which had been 
suggested for remedy of the ills complained of, and asserted 
the futility of attempts to secure amendments to the Con- 
stitution. The Constitution did not admit the right of a 
minority to submit such amendments to the people. Con- 
gress itself, the violator of these rights of the ^^ ^ , 

*5 ' ^ •=• The final argu- 

States, stood as a bar in the way of remedy.^ ment of state 
He then advanced the argument which was the "^^erposition. 
final resort of the men of this school. He said that the ap- 
prehension of the interposition by the States would pre- 

Supreme Court is created in the higher sense by the people in their 
ratification of the Constitution. The Federal government under our 
system is the creature of the Constitution, which is the creature of the 
people of the States. 

* Register of Debates, p. 89. . * Ibidem. » Ibidem. 



180 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

vent the Federal government from attempting to act beyond 
its constitutional powers.^ If three or seven (that is, a 
majority of a quorum) Supreme Court judges might render 
a decision nullifying an act of Congress, rendering an 
appeal by Congress to three-fourths of the States necessary, 
why might not a sovereign State be entrusted with the same 
power ? But he thought that it should never be exercised 
" in a hasty manner or on doubtful or inferior occasions," 
quoting Mr. Madison again. He averred that then the 
Federal government was bound so ftir to acquiesce in the 
solemn decision of the State, acting in its sovereign capacity, 
as to make an appeal to the people for an amendment to the 
Constitution.^ Certain questions were answered by Hayne 
in a way clearly to bring out the difference between his 
contention and that of the opposite school. " Would he 
justify an open resistance to an act of Congress sanctioned 
by the courts which should abolish the trial by jury, or 
destroy the freedom of religion, or the freedom of the press ? 
Yes, sir, he would advocate resistance in such case, and so 
would I, and so would all of us. But such resistance would, 
according to his doctrine, be revolution ; it would be rebel- 
lion. According to my opinion, it would be just, legal, and 
constitutional resistance." ' Hayne responded cordially to 
"Webster's eloquence in behalf of Union. He said that 
because South Carolina loved the Union she opposed those 
usurpations of the Federal government which would sooner 
or later tear the Union into fragments. His peroration was 
not equal in rhetorical power and beauty to the second of 
Webster's, but was superior to the whole tenor of the latter's 
third and concluding speech. " The gentleman," said Hayne, 
" is for marching under a banner studded all over with stars 
and bearing the inscription, ' Liberty and Union.' I had 
thought, sir, the gentleman would have borne a standard 
displaying in its ample folds a brilliant sun, extending its 
golden rays from the centre to the extremities, in the bright- 
ness of whose beams the little stars hide their diminished 

^ Register of Debates, p. 91. » Ibid., p. 91. » Ibid., p. 92. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 181 

heads. Ours, sir, is the hanner of the Constitution. The 
twenty-four States are there in all their undiminished lustre. 
On it is inscribed, 'Liberty — the Constitution — Union.' 
We offer up our prayers to the Father of all mercies that it 
may continue to wave, for ages yet to come, over a free, a 
happy, a united people." ^ 

The discussion between Webster and Hayne was con- 
cluded on the same day by " a few words" from the former 
" on the constitutional argument which the 
honorable gentleman had labored to recon- fhTSLion 
struct." Webster found the flaw in Hayne's between web- 

, , , 1 1 i 1 • ster and Havne. 

argument as to the general government being 
a party to the compact. Admitting, he said, for the sake 
of argument, the position that the Constitution is a compact 
between the States, the inferences Hayne drew therefrom 
were warranted by no just reason. That Constitution or 
that compact had established a government. He then re- 
stated rapidly his own position. The laws of the Congress 
were the supreme laws of the land, and the judicial power 
of the United States extended to every case arising under 
these laws. He affected contempt for Hayne's argument, 
which he did not answer. " He has not shown," said 
Webster, " it cannot be shown that the Constitution is a 
compact between State governments. It does not even say 
that it is established by the people of the several States ; 
but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the 
United States in the aggregate." In these remarks Mr. 
Webster did himself and his cause great injustice. His 
concluding statement was bold and dogmatic, but inconclu- 
sive. He assumed what some of his ablest party friends re- 
garded as untenable ground in the extract last made, and' 
when he denied that the Constitution was a compact be- 
tween the people of the several States he put his own word' 
against all the historical evidence. We shall see that he 
receded from this position in 1850. Notwithstanding the 

^ "Webster's fine passages in this debate have been so often quoted, 
I have merely indicated where some of them occurred. 



182 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

weak points in his opponent's argument, it must be said, 
upon a full and disinterested view, that the victory was not 
with the Massachusetts Senator, greater lawyer and orator 
The debate as a ^^^ morc experienced statesman that he was. 
■whole. On the whole, the debate sustained the State 

rio-hts party, but the specious reasoning in behalf of State 
interposition in the Union against the laws of the Union 
would not have stood an hour in a discussion with an orator 
of the early school of State rights of equal ability to that 
of the South Carolinian.^ 

Benton concluded on February 2 a four days' speech, 
begun on the 20th of January, but which was postponed 
for the discussion between Hayne and Webster. 
Benton's four Bcntou replied, in his conclusion, to arguments 
days' speech. ^^^ statements made by Webster in the previ- 
ous debate. It was a speech of masterly power both in its 
array of facts and in its use of them. He showed from the 
journals that Jefferson, and not Dane, was the 
thor^rthe Or- author of the Ordinance of 1787.^ Eight States 
dinanceofi787. Q^]y were prescut, and every one voted for it. 
Massachusetts was the only New England State represented. 
Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Georgia voted in the affirmative, with New York, New- 
Jersey, and Massachusetts. His manner in stating this fact 
and other historical proofs against Webster was exultant. 
He always had a greater array of facts than his contempo- 
raries, Benton produced documentary evidence that the 
North had attempted to surrender the navigation of the 
Mississippi in violation of the Articles of Confederation, 
which required nine States, not simply a majority, seven ; 



^ Judge Jeremiah S. Black in the Milligan case took the same position 
as Hayne on the Federal government being a party to the constitutional 
compact. Mr. B. J. Sage, in "The Eepublic of Republics," says that 
the real fourteenth party, if any, was the association called the United 
States. His contention is that the united republics, and not their agency, 
were to be the government. See pages 283 and 311 of his remarkable 
work, third edition, 1878. 

'' The whole speech as consolidated appears in the Register of Debates 
for this Congress, pp. 95-119. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 183 

that the South had resisted, and that North Carolina had 
finally defeated the movement.^ The South, he showed 
from the Journals, was entitled to the honor of having 
passed the Ordinance of 1787.^ He referred to the suffer- 
ing's of the younoj West in the Indian wars, the 

T .1 . r. .1 r. , The Old South 

generous policy on the part of the Southern and yoimg 
States in Congress, and to the opposition on ^^®^*- 
the part of the Northern to all measures of defence. More 
than fourteen instances of this opposition to Western inter- 
ests were stated.^ Benton criticised Webster's magnificent 
outburst on the Union. " The Senator's speech on the 
blessings of the Union brought into full play the favorite 
Ciceronian figure of amplification, but violated the rule of 
propriety which required the fitness of things to be consid- 
ered, — the time, the place, the subject, and the audience. 
There was nothing in the Senate or the country to grace its 
introduction. The time for it was when the five-striped 
banner was waving over the land of the North, — when the 
Hartford Convention was in session, amid the cry of ' Peace- 
ably if we can, forcibly if we must,' and ' The Negro States 
by themselves, the Potomac and the Alleghanies the boun- 
daries.' "* Benton printed in parallel columns of this tre- 
mendous speech the votes on measures in the Congress of 
Western importance from 1816 to 1824, and from 1825 to 
the date of the discussion. In the former 

1-11 ^^^^ England 

column New England was for and in the latter and the west- 
against the measures. He charged this change ^™s<^*<^®s- 
to the Presidential election of 1825, and said that on East- 
ern measures " we go by millions," while with difliculty the 
West obtained " a few miserable thousands." ^ 

One of Sprague's arguments in reply to Benton was that 
because some New England votes were cast for certain 
measures of Western interest, as the acquisi- 
tion of Louisiana, they could not have passed 
without her aid, and she should therefore have the credit 



1 Register of Debates, pp. 97-99. " Ibid., p. 99. 

» Ibid., pp. 102-105. * Ibid., p. 111. * Ibid., p. 116. 



184 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

of having secured their passage, although a majority of her 
votes were cast against them.^ Notable speeches were made 
Notable during the debate on the Foot resolution by 

speeches. Rowan, of Kentucky;^ Barton, of Missouri;^ 

Holmes, of Maine, who made an able and ingenious reply 
to Benton, Rowan, and the strict State rights view ; * 
TVoodbury, of New Hampshire, who contended that the 
general government were the servants and the States the mas- 
ters;* Smith, of South Carolina,® who brought an array of 
official figures on the land question, to refute the position 
of his colleague, and discussed all of the other topics intro- 
duced in this wide-reaching debate, taking on State rights 
more moderate ground than Hayne had done, but being not 
less explicit than he had been in declaring for the right of 
resistance ; Grundy, of Tennessee, who denied the right of 
the Federal government to use force upon a State to sustain 
its own adverse determination on any question ; "^ Clayton, 
on March 2 and 4, who debated in a long and very lumi- 
nous speech the power of removals ; replied to in a learned 
and argumentative effort by Livingston, of Louisiana, on 

1 Eegister of Debates, p. 122. 

* Rowan's view (p. 129 et seq. of Register of Debates) is presented with 
great lucidity, force, and refinement. It is the radical State rights view, 
in which the doctrine of restraint upon State sovereignty is denied. 
Each State, he says, exerts its plenary sovereign power jointly for all 
the legitimate purposes of the Union, and separately for all the purposes 
of domiciliary or State concerns. Page 136. He says that an appeal by 
the injured State would be as unavailing as it would be unwise. A 
majority of States have passed the obnoxious law, and the State cannot 
efficiently make the appeal (p. 142, Register of Debates). 

' February 9. He is the very Thersites of debate. Bitter objurgation, 
especially of Benton, his colleague, distinguishes the speech on this 
occasion (p. 146). 

* February 18, 19, p. 160 of Register of Debates. 

^ February 23, 24, Register of Debates, p. 179. He asserted that only 
moral or physical force can be used against any process of the Supreme 
Court, and the latter only when the evil is extreme and palpable (p. 
186). 

^ Register of Debates, p. 196. He convicted Benton of inconsistency 
on the subject of internal improvements. 

^ Register of Debates, p. 231. 



THE DEBATE OF IS 30 AND OTHER EVENTS. 185 

Marcli 9 and 15, which, however, did not affect seriously 
the positions it assailed.^ He believed in the Constitution 
as a compact and the Supreme Court as the arbiter under 
the Constitution " in any case of law or equity between 
persons, or on matters of whom or on which that court has 
jurisdiction, even if such decree or judgment should, in 
the opinion of the State, be unconstitutional." But he held 
that " in cases in which a law of the United States may in- 
fringe the constitutional right of a State, but which in its 
operation cannot be brought before the Supreme Court 
under the terms of the jurisdiction expressly given to it 
over particular persons or matters, that court is not created 
the umpire between a State that may deem itself aggrieved 
and the general government." He combated "Webster's 
theory of a popular government, but admitted that the 
government as established, so far as its operations extended, 
was both popular and federative. Respecting the current 
talk of disunion, he said, " The bond cannot be unloosed 
until it is wet with the blood of brothers." ^ Johnson, of 
the same State, denying Benton's right to speak in the name 
of the West, affirmed that a new party founded on State 
rights was arising and tending inevitably to a dissolution 
of the Union. He contended against the right of veto in 
individual States. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions 
were merely declaratory. In contradistinction from Web- 
ster, he averred that the Federal government was established 
by the people of the several States, but for great national 
purposes.^ The subject was postponed until May 
20, when Robbins, of Rhode Island, contended 
that the Constitution was paramount to the State constitu- 
tions, and that the confederation was a nation. He said 
that the master states of the world would be lost in the 
blaze of the Union as stars were lost in the noontide blaze 
of the sun.* Indirectly admitting the defeat of his object. 
Foot made a brief defence of the North from the speeches 

^ Register of Debates, p. 247 et seq. ' Ibid., p. 270. 

8 Ibid., p. 292, * Ibid., p. 438. 



186 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

of Benton and Hayne, and also treated the public land and 
official removal questions.* 

The great omnium gatherum debate closed on the 21st 
of May with speeches by Benton and Sprague.^ The latter's 
remarks were brief and not sufficient to turn 
ofthe debater ^^^ advantage which the other had won on the 
the Foot reso- several questions that had been discussed. Ben- 
ton reviewed with more circumstantial force 
than before the official history of the adoption of the Ordi- 
nance of 1787. Jeiferson wrote the first draft, including 
the anti-slavery clause, which was rejected but not restored 
by the necessary majority when it had reached Congress. 
On July 13, when the ordinance finally passed, only one 
vote — that of Mr. Yates, of New York — was recorded 
against it. The chairman of the committee who reported 
it was Mr. Carrington, of Virginia ; of the five members, 
two were Virginians — Carrington and Richard Henry Lee — 
and three were Southerners, these men and Kean, of South 
Carolina ; Dane, of Massachusetts, and Smith, of New York, 
were the other members of the committee. On its passage 
five slave States and three anti-slave States were present. 
Four Northern States were absent. Only one New Eng- 
land State was represented in the vote. Virginia gave the 
greatest number of individual votes for the measure, she 
who had furnished the first and the last chairman of the 
committee.' Jeffi^rson's ordinance was adopted, but the 
clause excluding slavery was afterwards stricken out, and 
was not restored when the anti-slavery States had a majority 
present in Congress. Benton also showed that the anti- 
slavery article, with the addition of words of compact be- 
tween the original and the new States to come into the 

^ In his opinion, the President had not the power of removal because 
he did not possess the power of appointment. Eegister of Debates, p. 
444. 

2 Ibid., pp. 447-452. 

' Register of Debates, p. 448 ; Journal Confederate Congress, p. 754. 
Benton's meaning was that Jefferson's ordinance of 1784 was the one 
which was finally adopted. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 187 

Union, was in fact adopted, as proposed by King, and not 
rejected, as had been stated by Webster. This was in March, 
1785. That compact was a part of Jeiferson's ordinance of 
1784, and the other was the rejected article oiFered by Jef- 
ferson in that year. He declared that "Webster had en- 
deavored to deprive Jefferson of honors in order to place 
them on Dane's brow.^ 

' Peter Force, in Appendix I. of the St. Clair Papers, in giving an 
account of the Ordinance of 1787, says that Jefferson's plan for a tem- 
porary government of the Western Territory was adopted, and was the 
law of the land until repealed in 1787. The whole subject of slavery in 
the Northwest Territory is discussed by Dunn in "Indiana" (Ameri- 
can Commonwealth series, Boston, 1888). He refers to the claims made 
by or in behalf of Dane, Jefferson, Rufus King, St. Clair, Richard 
Henry Lee, Grayson, Edward Carrington, and Manasseh Cutler. On 
page 204, he says that "the ordinance as adopted was an entirely dif- 
ferent instrument from any that had before been considered by Con- 
gress, and yet it included the greater part of the preceding propositions." 
Benton is sustained partly by what he next states: "The identity of 
phraseology shows that whoever drafted it had the older reports before 
him at the time." The sixth or anti-slavery clause as a whole did not 
appear in the ordinance as reported and printed. Mr. Dunn says that 
it was introduced on July 12, and appeared on the printed bill as an 
amendment in the handwriting of Dane. In a letter to Monroe, dated 
August 8, 1787, Grayson says: "The clause respecting slavery was 
agreed to by the Southern members for the purpose of preventing to- 
bacco and indigo from being made on the northwest side of the Ohio, 
as well as several other political reasons." Existing slavery was not 
abolished. Its legality went unchallenged by the courts in Indiana. 
Page 237 of Dunn's " Indiana" for the last statement. Alexander John- 
ston, in Lalor's Cyclopaedia (New York, 1895), says that "the fairest 
view is that Jefferson's report (adopted April 23, 1784) was the frame- 
work on which the ordinance was built." 

Monday, March 1, 1784, Congress received the deed of cession of 
Virginia at the hands of the delegation of that State authorized to exe- 
cute it,— namely, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and 
James Monroe. Page 342 of the Journals of Congress, 1784. Congress 
had by the act of September 6, 1780, recommended a liberal cession of 
a portion of their claims to the several States having claims in the west- 
ern country. Virginia had, accordingly, January 2, 1781, yielded all 
right, title, and claim which she had to the territory northwest of tjie 
Ohio River for the common benefit of the Union. The deed of 1784 
stipulated for the States to be admitted as "members of the Federal 
Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and indepen- 



188 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Pending this great debate in the Senate the country was 
agitated over the tariff and other questions which had di- 
Pendingthede- vided both parties and sections. The low-tariif 
bate. newspapers insisted that no time was more 

suitable than that for revising the tariff. But some of the 
strono-est of them did not regard the condition of things 
as presenting a case of last resort.^ Some of the Jackson 
papers discussed the matter of his renomination, and on 
the 31 st of March the Democratic members of the legis- 
lature in Pennsylvania warmly endorsed his administra- 
tion, and nominated him for a second term. During this 
year five of the six 'New England States voted with the 
administration. The Bank and the Maysville veto were 
topics of great interest during the year. In New York the 
workingmen formed a political organization, which was 
called, from the name of the famous agitator of English 
birth, " the Fanny Wright party." In Febru- 
e ruary. ^^^^ ^^ ^^ back a short time, there was some 
gossip concerning the intention of Mr. Branch, Secretary 
of the Navy, to resign his seat in the cabinet.^ This was 
Breach in the foUowed by rumors of a breach of amity be- 
administration. twecn Vice-Prcsidcnt Calhouu and Mr. Van 
Buren, Secretary of State. They proceeded from the op- 
position in the first instance. In June and July of the same 
year Jackson was nominated in county meetings in Ken- 
tucky as the friend of the tariff and of internal improve- 
ments. The Anti-Masonic Convention met in November 
at Philadelphia. There were no members from the States 
south of Maryland. In our brief notice of the general 
political events of the time we conclude with the statement 
that towards the end of 1830 there was a movement for a 

dence as the other States." Protection for the settlers in their "rights 
and liberties," "their possessions and titles confirmed to them," was 
also stipulated. In 1786 Congress asked the States to revise their acts 
of cession. 

Reference begins at page 11 of the Journals, and ends at page 835 of 
the volume for 1782-88, for cessions of territory to the United States. 

' Richmond Enquirer, June, 1830. 

* Ibid., February 4. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 189 

convention of the National Republicans soon, to be called 
Whigs.^ 

In South Carolina Dr. Cooper and the Mercury continued 
the opposition to the tarifip, and there were signs that the 
policy of internal improvements was as ob- ^, . . 

^ -I r _ The agitation 

noxious there as protection.^ The prominent in south caro- 
men of the State made frequently addresses at ^^^^' 
public meetings. At one of these dinners, given in Charles- 
ton on the 1st of July, there were nearly six hundred per- 
sons present. It was a brilliant assemblage of the talent 
of the State. The portraits of Washington and pubiic meet- 
other Revolutionary heroes and statesmen ap- i'^s^- 
peared on the walls, and there was a display of United 
States flags. Among the designs was the motto taken from 
Hayne's celebrated speech, " Liberty — the Constitution — 
Union." Opposing nullification, Colonel William Drayton, 
who had been a member of the old Federal 
party, said, " A crisis might arise when the 
bonds of the Union ought to be broken. The right of the 
State to secede from the Union I unqualifiedly concede ; 
but so long as she belongs to it, if she be not bound by its 
laws, the monstrous anomalies would exist of a govern- 
ment whose acts were not obligatory upon its citizens and a 
State constituting one of the members of the Union whilst 
denying the authority of its laws." Disunion, he thought, 
was " incalculably more to be defended than the existence 
of the law which we condemn." Hayne spoke at length 
and eloquently in favor of the prevalent doctrine in South 
Carolina and in defence of the State's course, and compli- 
mented President Jackson for the Maysville veto-message. 
Cheves and Hamilton advocated the policy of consultation 
and joint action by the Southern States.^ At the dinner to 
McDuffie at Edgefield, on the 4th of August, the Union, 
the President, and the Vice-President were toasted. But 
the second toast was quite bellicose, — " South Carolina : 

^ National Intelligencer, December 28. 

' Winyaw Intelligencer, quoted in National Intelligencer, October 2. 

'Charleston Mercury, July 3 ; Niks' s Register, July 17. 



190 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

those of her sons, who feel for their insulted country as 
freemen ought, would rather see this State one vast mau- 
soleum for the honored dead than to see her 

Bellicose toasts. ,••,■, ^ t • ,i , • « 

strike her colors and raise the recreant voice of 
submission." At one of the dinners near Charleston Gov- 
ernor Miller gave the toast : " The right to fight, — the only 
principle in the law of nations worth preserving." Among 
the gatherings in favor of the policy of holding a convention 
was one held at Columbia on the 20th of September, at 
which there was an attendance from all portions of the 
State. Only eight votes were cast against the proposition. 
It was as yet, as a local journal of the time stated,^ not a 
question of nullification, but simply of convention or no 
convention. Supreme Judge Johnston, on the side opposed 
to measures of resistance, in a printed controversy with 
Governor Taylor, doubted if there was a man in South 
Carolina who agreed with him (Johnston) on seven of his 
eight points.^ Indeed, there was practically no sentiment 
in the State in favor of even a moderate theory of national 
consolidation. The issue of convention or no convention 
was presented at the elections for members of the legislature. 
The city of Charleston gave a majority against the con- 
vention or extreme State rights party. The measure re- 
jud e William ^^^^^^^^ ^ two-thirds votc, and did not prevail at 
Smith on nuiii- that timc.^ In a strong letter, written just be- 
cation. £^^^ ^Y^^ elections, Senator Smith exposed the 

irrationality of nullification. He was defeated for re-election 
to the Senate that winter on account of his position on the 
question of State resistance. 

^ The Columbia Telescope. 

' Drayton, Smith, and about all of the leaders of the opposition, were 
State rights men, and most of them believed in the right of secession. 
Johnston was a protectionist. He favored giving the United States 
Senate the right, by a two-thirds vote, to decide on the constitution- 
ality of State laws. 

^ The vote on the call of the convention was, in the Senate 23 for, 
12 against.; in the House, 60 for, 56 against. The South Carolina Legis- 
lature adjourned on the 19th of December. Mies' s Register, January 8, 
1831. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 191 

In the fall elections IsTew York and New Jersey supported 
the Jackson administration, although in the former State it 
would appear that national politics did not The state eiec- 
enter to a large degree. Clay, who had heen "ons. 
endorsed, along with Union and the American system, hy 
the Kentucky State convention, carried Ohio except the 
legislature. As early as this, both sides were getting ready 
for a renewal of the conflict of 1824 and 1828, 

In the States bordering upon South Carolina there were 
movements, official and otherwise, more or less sympathetic. 
The message of Governor Owen, of North „^ „ 

^ . ' The states bor- 

Carolina, declared that the tariff called for a dering on south 
solemn protest.^ A common treasury without ^*'^°^"^- 
deriving a common benefit from it and a common contribu- 
tion to replenish it was as unjust as a community of goods 
without a community of toil. The Georgia House of Rep- 
resentatives asserted that the tariff and internal improve- 
ment legislation were unconstitutional. In Georgia, as in 
Virginia, there was a strong State rights feeling which was 
bitterly hostile to the nullification movement. 
One of the newspapers of the former State, fouth"^? Se 
published at the capital, charged that the nul- nuiiiflcation 
lifiers were once latitudinarians ; that the true ^"'^^'^^ • 
State rights party were represented by Smith, whom 
they had put out of the Senate.^ The North Carolina 
House of Commons adopted anti-nullification resolutions 
by a vote of 87 to 27, and unanimously the resolution de- 
claring that the sentiment, " the Union must be preserved," 
was one challenging approbation and promising to save the 
Union from disunion and anarchy.' 

Early in the year 1831 a publication which was to have 
far-reachino; consequences was made in a Wash- 

1831 

ington newspaper. It was extensively re- 
printed and was the subject of much comment throughout 



* Raleigh Star ; Richmond Enquirer, November 23. 

' Milledgeville Recorder, quoted by National Intelligencer, August 3. 

^ Niles's Register, Februry 5, 1831. 



192 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the country.^ This was the publication of all the letters 
bearing on the Seminole affair and the position 
semLMteaffair^ of Monroe's Cabinet with reference to General 
Jackson and Jackson's attitude and action on the occasion. 
Jackson had always thought that Calhoun had 
approved of his conduct. The correspondence, which was 
precipitated by the friends of Crawford and Van Buren, 
who were enemies of Calhoun, showed the contrary. The 
friends of the latter asserted that he did not desire a breach 
with General Jackson, but that he would not shirk respon- 
sibility. The whole controversy seems to have originated 
Causes of the from the ambitiou of Van Buren and Calhoun 
controversy. ^o succccd Jacksou, if he should not be a candi- 
date for re-election to the Presidency, and the disposition 
of the Clay press to foment discord in the other party. But 
important factors in the affair were the grudge that existed 
between Crawford and Calhoun and the suspicions of Jack- 
son. If he had not been before inclined to support Van 
Buren, the publication of the correspondence induced him to 
decide upon that course. Meantime, however, matters were 
shaping themselves for the renomination of the President. 

The excitement in Washington at the close of the session 
was unprecedented.^ The Calhoun-Crawford-Jackson cor- 
Excitement respQudence only added to the confusion of 
and confusion, party Warfare, in which its effect was for a 
time to change the relations of men to parties. The Presi- 
dent refused to appoint a nullifier to an office in Charleston, 
although the applicant was backed by others who were not 
of that party.' A dinner was given to Webster, during the 
latter part of March, in honor of his efforts in the debate 
with Hayne and Benton ; Chancellor Kent presided, and 
Webster made a great speech. At a later day nullification 
was toasted in Charleston, at a dinner to McDufiie, as " the 
only rightful remedy of an injured State." 

^ United States TeUgraph, February and March ; also Globe and National 
Intelligencer. It was reprinted in Niks' s Register, vol. xL, March 5-19, 
April 2. 

^ Niles's Register, March 5. ' Ibid., ]\Iarch 12. 



THE DEBATE OF 18S0 AND OTHER EVENTS. 193 

Meanwhile several members of the cabinet had resigned. 
The circumstances of their resignation and the correspond- 
ence that ensued provoked an angry state of Rupture of the 
public feeling which continued for several cabinet. 
months. The members who retired were known as Cal- 
houn men, except Van Buren, Secretary of State, who was 
to give way for the temporary good of his party and as a 
decent pretext for the pressure which swept Ingham, Ber- 
rien, and Branch from their places at the head of, respec- 
tively, the offices of the Interior, the Attorney-General, and 
the ISTavy. The letters revealed a singular state of social 
relations, and the President's ostensible reason 
for what he did, if it had been his sole ground, ^"'jfi ""i^J^^ 
would have done credit to his gallantry. But of the Presi- 
that he made the refusal of some officers of the 
government to receive the wife of the Secretary of War, 
General Eaton, at their official receptions, an excuse for 
getting rid of a cabinet which was not wholly in sympathy 
with his political objects became apparent, although the 
real motive was not at first suspected. This episode is not 
one of those passages in our history that suffuse the face 
with pride.^ 

In January, 1831, William Lloyd Garrison established 
the Liberator, Y7\t\\ the programme *of "imme- Garrison's ub- 
diate and unconditional emancipation." «'"«^'""- 

Mr. Calhoun had so far taken no direct part in the South 
Carolina proceedings. Carefully observing the proprieties, 
he, as Vice-President of the United States, caihoun's ex- 
would not make himself a party to a move- position. 
ment the effect of which might be to sunder the Union. 
Indeed, almost up to the moment of his " Exposition," printed 
in a village newspaper, the Pendleton (South Carolina) Mes- 
senger, it had been asserted by impartial persons and news- 
papers that he was not an advocate of nullification.^ This 
paper was a singularly acute, metaphysical, original, but 

^ Globe, Telegraph, National Intelligencer, and Mies' s Register, during the 
summer of 1831. 
' It was denied that he was a nuUifier in Niles's Register, vol. xl. p. 49. 

13 



194 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

essentially unsound exposition of constitutional principles. 
What he called " the high controlling power" was in the 
will of'" a majority compounded of a majority of the States 
taken as corporate bodies, and the majority of the people of 
the States estimated in federal numbers." The Supreme 
Court was not the final arbiter. The appeal was to three- 
fourths of the States. He contended that the Virginia 
Report had placed the matter beyond controversy. " The 
States had no right to this high power of interposition, . . . 
except in cases of dangerous infractions of the Constitution, 
and then only in the last resort, when all reasonable hope 
of relief from the ordinary action of the government had 
failed; when, if the right to interpose did not exist, the 
alternative would be submission and oppression on one 
side, or resistance by force on the other." Calhoun re- 
marked the antagonism of the sections on the tariff, and 
declared that a reduction of the duties to a fair system of 
revenue was necessary. The proposed division of the sur- 
plus in the treasury among the States was denounced as 
" the most dangerous, unconstitutional, and absurd propo- 
sition ever devised by any government." The presentation 
of the questions at issue was in very temperate and elevated 
language.^ 

Meetings were held throughout South Carolina, some in 

advocacy of nullification, others in opposition. Ex-Senator 

Smith was present at Spartanburg, where Jack- 

Union meetings ^ ^ ^ _ °; 

in South caro- SOU w^as Complimented in resolutions and Cal- 
°^' houn, in elfect, discountenanced. The Union 

party viewed nullification as a highly irregular and uncon- 
stitutional measure, leading to civil war, disunion, or dis- 
graceful retreat.^ 

^ Mr. Calhoun and his school drew wrong inferences from the Madison 
report. That document insisted only upon the right of protest, and pos- 
sibly in the last resort of a dissolution of the Union. It claimed the 
right to state infractions of the Constitution, but did not provide for 
nullification in the proper sense of the word. There must be an eternal 
difference between the final appeal from the Union and the right in the 
Union to defy the majority. 

^ At St. John's, Colleton, August 9. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 195 

On the 30th of September what was called the free-trade 
convention met in Philadelphia. Fifteen States were rep- 
resented. Amono; the delegates were Gallatin, 
P. P. Barbour, Chancellor Harper, Cheves, TStntruon 
Iredell, and Berrien. Against Gallatin's opin- at piiiiadei- 
ion a declaration was adopted, by a vote of one ^ ^*' 
hundred and forty- nine to twenty- nine, setting forth that 
the tariff was unconstitutional.^ A convention of the 
friends of the tariif was held in New York- on 
the 26th of October. It was a larger body i^^\ZS' con- 
than the other. One of the utterances of the ventioninNew 
tariif convention was the followinor : " Cono-ress 
cannot look with one glance to revenue and the other to 
protection." One of the special benefits of the protective 
tariff was declared to be the lowering of prices abroad, 
claimed to be the result of American competition. With 
strange fatuity or perversity it was denied that the distress 
at the South had been increased by the passage of the tariff 
of 1828. The address, which was very long, closed with a 
eulogy of the Union and an exhortation to support it.^ 

Connected with these events were the general party move- 
ments of the time. The Anti-Masons nominated William 
Wirt, of Virginia, and Amos Elmaker, of Penn- p^rty move- 
sylvania, for President and Vice-President, ^ents. 
At the end of the year, the National Republican convention 
nominated Clay and Sergeant for its Presidential ticket. 
Jackson was not nominated until the following spring. 

In a previous chapter precautions against a servile in- 
surrection in certain localities of the Southern States were 
spoken of. Such safeguards had not, up to the sen-ne insur- 
event about to be recorded, been taken in Vir- section. 
ginia. The white people of that commonwealth sustained 
somewhat dift'erent relations with their servants from those 

^ Niles's Register, October 8, 15. 

" Ibid., November 12, address on p. 204. One of the speakers said that 
the tariff was then almost a nuUity ; that the manufecturer, owing to 
frauds on the revenue, did not enjoy more than forty or fifty per cent. — 
Niles's Rerjister, p. 203. 



196 A HISTORY OF TEE ^JSECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

sustained by the slave-holders of the far South with theirs. 
In Maryland, Virginia, and IlTorth Carolina there was felt 
almost perfect security from that source of danger, and while 
the intelligent and controlling class apprehended trouble 
to come from the institution it was thought that it would 
be purely political and would not seriously — at least for a 
long while — affect domestic peace and the personal safety of 
the planters and their families. When, therefore, the news 
wag spread over the South in the latter part of 
August that an insurrection of the slaves had 
occurred in Southampton County, Virginia, and that a large 
number of lives had been sacrificed, the greatest conster- 
The southamp- nation prevailed.^ The excitement among the 
ton massacre, slavcs was produccd by the negro preachers, led 
by one of them, named Nat Turner. The first family mur- 
dered bore the name of Travers. The number of the in- 
surgents was not at any time large, but some of them were 
mounted and armed, and thus eluded the efforts which 
were promptly made by the State authorities to capture 
them and suppress the revolt. They attempted to reach the 
Dismal Swamp, not many miles distant, where they would 
have been able to go into secure hiding and depredate on the 
neighboring farms until some great conflagration in a dry 
summer should drive them from their fastness. Several en- 
counters took place between the outlaws and 

The outlaws _ ^ ^ 

overpowered the militia. At length, on the 29th of August, 
October 30. ^-^^ insurrcctiou was at an end. But the leader 
was not caught until the 30th of October. He was found 
in a cave not far from the scene of the horrors. The in- 
surgents were all caught, tried, convicted, sentenced, and 
•executed by due process of law. Their offences had been 
the most heinous known to the times. In that part of the 
South the slaves were kindly treated, almost 

A causeless re- _ . 

beiiion. Its without cxccptiou ; the leaders in the revolt 

were the most favored and most intelligent; 

they appeared to have been most cruel to those masters and 

* The first rumors were gross exaggerations. It was said that from 
three hundred to eight hundred negroes were under arms. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 197 

their families who had been most indulgent ; and, alto- 
gether, it was a causeless rebellion, atrocious in its outbreak 
and progress and hap]3y in its speedy suppression by the 
firm hand of ofiicial power.^ 

The Southampton insurrection left an uneasy feeling in 
lower Virginia and North Carolina, which caused a tight- 
ening of the lines on the part of the masters. 
Martial law was proclaimed at Wilmington and in'^vtrginirand 
other places in Eastern North Carolina, and the North Carolina. 
militia were called out. Free negroes were ar- 
rested. Several blacks were tried for conspiracy to commit 
wholesale murder, and executions took place in several 
States.^ Many white women and children fled to the 
swamps. It was a considerable time before the terror 
abated, and there was never again in the South a feeling 
of security. Some notion of the general unrest may be 
derived from the recommendations of the Governor of Vir- 
ginia in his annual message to the legislature. He advised 

^ For general facts see Niles's Register, September-November, in- 
clusive ; also Governor Floyd's message, Niles's Register, for January, 
p. 350. The governor says that sixty-one persons were massacred, 
mostly women and children. He also states that the number of "the 
banditti of slaves" — his expression, — "never exceeded seventy in 
number." 

The following description of "General" Nat Turner was given by 
his owner, P. R. Beverley, of Alexandria, Virginia : " A black man, six 
feet two inches high, or thereabouts, not corpulent, but very muscular ; 
has, or had eighteen months ago when he ran off, a wart on the upper 
lid of one of his eyes, about the size of a large duck-shot, and a scar, not 
very large, on his forehead," etc. Further, he is said to have been 
expert as a sein-hauler and plantation hand, had a "smooth tongue," 
large feet and hands, thin, but strong frame ; he often showed a specious 
smile ; he was about forty years of age. Mr. Beverley says that Nat ran 
off from Old Point, where he was at work, with thirty dollars of his 
master's money. At Old Point he become a Baptist preacher, and 
claimed to have been inspired. — Clipping from Baltimore Gazette in 
Washington Globe, September 23, 1831. A correspondent of the Rich- 
mond Whig, who was present at the trial, says that Nat Turner only pre- 
tended to be a Baptist minister. 

' Washington Globe, September 20 ; National Intelligencer, September 
26 ; Niles's Register, November 19, December 10, 1831 ; also for brief 
mention several State histories, as Moore's North Carolina. 



198 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

that slaves should be confined to the plantations of their 
masters, and recommended an appropriation for the re- 
moval of free persons of color. 

But while the insurrection excited such feelings as these 
in all the slave States another spirit seemed dominant 
among the thoughtful public men of Virginia. 
dp'ation Ste ^^ December of the session of 1831-32 the sub- 
in the Virginia jects of emancipation and colonization arose in 

gisature. ^^^ legislature. The debate lasted thirteen 
days. The decision was against the expediency of present 
action, although " the great evils arising from the condition 
of the colored population" were admitted. In the reso- 
lutions adopted sympathy for the scheme of colonization 
was extended in accordance with public sentiment. The 
Kichmond Enquirer and Whig and other newspapers of the 
State urged the enactment of a law of gradual emancipa- 
tion. The Enquirer, then one of the most influential jour- 
nals of the country, held this language : " Are we forever 
to sufter the greatest evil which can scourge our land not 
only to remain, but to increase in its dimensions? . . . 
Means sure, but gradual, systematic but discreet, ought to 
be adopted for reducing the mass of evil which is pressing 
upon the South, and will still more press upon her the 
longer it is put off." ^ Some of the leading advocates of 
emancipation were Messrs. Moore, Thomas J. Randolph, 
Charles J. Faulkner, Rives, and Boiling; of the opposition, 
Messrs. Leigh, Brown, and Gholson. Considerable elo- 
quence and acumen were displayed on both sides of the dis- 
cussion. The emancipationists insisted that the origin of 
slavery was in fraud and violence ; that it was against moral 
sentiment, civic policy, and sound industrial principles ; that 
it had degraded Virginia from a first to a third rate com- 
monwealth ; that from the increase of the black population 
there was danger of servile insurrection, and the extermi- 
nation of many of the white people. These arguments 
were met by a qualified defence of slavery as an existing 

^ Enquirer, January 7, 1832. 



THE DEBATE OF IS 30 AND OTHER EVENTS. 199 

institution.^ This was the last great appearance of the 
anti-slavery sentiment in the South. The lines were too 
tightly drawn henceforth for much if anything to be mani- 
fest of that historic abolitionism which judged of slavery 
l)y a practical knowledge of its ills and not by a sentiment 
which might have been tinctured by political jealousy. 

What was known as the Jackson party, now called 
formally the Democratic party, nominated Jackson and 
Van Buren for President and Vice-President, at 
Baltimore, on the 22d of May, 1832. The latter ^^^' ^^^^"^^^ 
did not give satisfaction to some of the Southern Demo- 
crats who supported General Jackson. Ex- 
Speaker P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, was ai convention 
brought out by various conventions and leffis- °^ ^^^ Demo- 

. "-^ "^ _ ~ crats. Dissatis- 

kitive caucuses as the candidate of the party faction in the 
for the Vice-Presidency. Mr. Barbour with- ^"^^^ 
drew subsequently from the contest, on the ground that his 
candidature might imperil Jackson's election.^ 

Events in South Carolina were shaping for a more definite 
expression of the ultimate feeling of the majority. In the 
South generally the "Exposition" of Mr. Cal- 
houn had been received as a frank, able, and un- nonsense of 
popular statement of views. It was treated with Ji^iiiflcation. 
respect, and no suspicion of wrong motives was entertained.' 
But the heresy and nonsense of nullification was the sub- 
ject of many speeches and editorials.* The 
South Carolina delegation in Congress pub- jj^^ ""congres^ 
lished an address to the people of that State sionai deiega- 
on the 13th of July, 1832.^ The burden of the "°°" 
tariff', they said, rested on the anti-tariff States. The toasts 

> Richmond Enquirer; also Daniel R. Goodloe's "Southern Plat- 
form," pp. 43-54. 

^ October 24. 

' Extracts in National Intelligencer, August 24, 1831, from various news- 
papers. 

* Some of the journals treated it seriously, under the caption of the 
"Crisis." 

* Senators Hayne and INIiller and Representatives McDuffie, Davis, Fel- 
der, Griffin, Nuckolls, and Barnwell. Niles's Register, August 4, p. 414. 



200 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

and speech-phrases, which, the year before, had been usually- 
pacific, were now bellicose. Such expressions as " baptism 
in blood," " in the field of battle," etc., were of frequent 
use. Even the Fourth of July celebrations partook of this 
character of hostility.^ In the fall of this year, 
nullification was rampant. H. L. Pinckney, 
editor of the Mercury, was elected mayor of Charleston 
amidst violent excitement. In one of his published letters 
Calhoun said that in a few years the South Carolina doctrine 
would be the established political faith of the country. In 
his opinion the danger was not disunion, but loss of liberty. 
The nullification paper at the State capital observed : " The 
union of these States is now virtually dissolved, — dissolved 
in the only place where it ever can be permanent, viz. : in 
the hearts of the people." ^ 

But Union meetings were held in South Carolina and 
other Southern States. At the convention of that party in 
Columbia an address to the people was adopted, which de- 
clared that the theory of nullification falsified the history of 
the country. But the convention also averred that there 
was no tarifi^ party in South Carolina. It was proposed to 
hold a convention of the Southern States for " deliberation 
as well on the infraction of their rights as on the mode and 
measure of redress." There were hints of " interposition" 
by combined action. It is very evident that many, if not 
most, of the Union party, so-called, in South Carolina and 
Virginia, were secessionists in the last resort. The resolu- 
tions adopted by this convention expressed a desire to unite 
with the other party " on any ground which promises a re- 
dress of our grievances without involving a violation of the 
Constitution of the United States;" pledged the members 
of the convention to abide by the action of a Southern con- 
vention, and arranged for a committee of correspondence. 
The venerable ex-Governor Thomas Taylor presided.^ 



^ Niles^s Register, August 4, p. 387. 

^ Columbia Telescope, quoted in Niles, p. 77. 

3 Ibid., p. 87. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 201 

An allusion to a possible combination of seven Southern 
States was made by the display at Oglethorpe, Georgia, of a 
seven-striped banner. P. P. Barbour, in reply to an invita- 
tion to address a meeting in IsTorth Carolina of the political 
friends of General Jackson, wrote that " the only rightful 
remedy (in such cases as South Carolina would provide 
nullification for) was that of secession ... to be applied 
only in cases of hopeless extremity." ^ 

"We should return at this point to the course of tariff 
legislation. On the 5th of February, 1830, McDuffie re- 
ported from the Ways and Means Committee a 
bill which contained among its provisions the 
following : Duties to be levied in lieu of those then im- 
posed, from and after June 30, 1830, on iron in bolts and 
bars, ninety cents per hundred and twelve pounds ; in pigs 
for same weight, fifty cents ; hemp and flax, unmanufactured, 
thirty-five dollars per ton ; cotton bagging, three and three- 
fourths cents per square yard ; unmanufactured wool, twenty- 
five per cent, ad valorem until June 30, 1831, and five per 
cent, every year until the duty should be reduced to fifteen 
per cent, ad valorem^ provided that all wool, the actual value 
of which at the place whence imported shall not exceed 
ten cents per pound, shall pay a duty of fifteen per cent, ad 
valorem^ and no more, from after the 30th of June, 1830; 
on all woollen or part woollen manufactures, except worsted 
manufactures and blankets, which were to pay twenty-five 
per cent, ad valorem, a duty of thirty-three and one-third 
f)er cent, ad valorem; cotton or part cotton manufactures, 
twenty-five per cent, ad valorem, except nankeens imported 
directly from China; salt, ten cents per bushel of fifty-six 
pounds; molasses, four cents the gallon.^ Objection was 
raised by a Pennsylvania member to a discussion of the 
bill. The yeas and nays were ordered on the question 
of rejection. Cambreleng and Barbour desired a fair 
consideration of the question presented in the bill, and 
Strong, of ISTew York, asked for a postponement. On the 

1 Niles, October 20. ^ Eegister of Debates, p. 555. 



202 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

8th of February Strong's motion to table the measure pre- 
vailed by a vote of one hundred and seven to seventy-nine.^ 
The debate on March 11 was on Polk's amendment to An- 
derson's resolution instructing the Ways and 

March H. ;j^j[g^ns Committee to bring in a bill for a draw- 
back of nine cents per gallon on rum distilled in this country 
from foreign molasses when such rum was exported. The 
amendment allowed a drawback of four and one-half cents 
per square yard on foreign cotton bagging exported either 
in the original packages or around cotton bales.^ The South- 
ern members contended that as the greater part of the bag- 
ging was still imported, Kentucky did not require the duty. 
There was no duty before 1824, the duty of which year had 
been increased in 1828 from three and three-fourths cents 
to five cents per square yard. Some of the Southern speak- 
ers repelled the charge that the South was against all tariff 
duties or favored disunion if the present duties were not re- 
duced.^ Finally, on March 16, the resolution and proposed 
amendments by Polk and Gorham were laid on the table.* 

Mallary reported from the Committee on Manufactures a 
bill the purpose of which was declared to be to enforce the 
law of 1828. It concerned the collection of the duties, and 
was for the purpose, as alleged, to prevent fraudulent in- 
voices.* A bill reducing the duties on tea and coffee passed, 
after failure to incorporate amendments to reduce the salt 
duty. The duties were made specific by the adoption of 
McDuffie's amendment.^ 

Debate was resumed on the 26th of April upon the bill 

reported by Mr. McDufiie. He offered and 

^" ■ discussed a proposition to strike out all after 

the first section. About the same time the House con- 

1 Register of Debates, p. 556. ' Ibid,, pp. 605-612. 

» Ibid., pp. 615-617. 

* Ibid., p. 624. Gorham' 8 amendment included cotton exported from 
any State to any other State or to any foreign port as merchandise. It 
also provided that foreign wool, costing not more than 10 cents per 
pound at the place whence imported, might be imported free of duty. 
Ibid. 

s Ibid., p. 795. « Ibid., pp. 803, 808. 



THE DEBATE OF 18S0 AND OTHER EVENTS. 203 

Bidered a navigation and import bill from the Committee 
on Commerce, reported by Cambreleng and opposed by 
Mallary and Gorliam.^ On the 3d of May, Blair, of South 
Carolina, alluded to the tarifi* system as " this ^^ ^ ^^ 
rider on the pale horse (spoken of in the Apoca- Paie Horse. 
lypse) that brings all hell after it." ^ Elaborate arguments 
against and for protection were made by McDuffie and 
Davis.^ The policy was treated at large. McDuffie's was 
an incisive, eloquent, bitter arraignment of the 
tariff, charging general impolicy, special oppres- 
sion of the South, and essential unconstitutionality. This 
unconstitutionality, he argued, was the worse because it was 
covered under the form of legality, as the act could not 
be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. He 
further contended that a tyranny by votes was worse than 
one by arms, because more insidious and giving less oppor- 
tunity for resistance. State bounties, he said, with Hamil- 
ton, would be one of the most efficacious means of encour- 
aging manufactures. No man dared to avow the true cause — 
the avowal of which, he averred, would not be tolerated by 
the moral sense of the country — why the manufacturing 
States, having the undoubted power, would not extend any 
protection to their own manufactures, but sent them to 
Congress for relief.* 

Davis devoted a large part of his reply to McDuffie's 
argument that the exports of the South paid the duties on 
imports. The latter's interruptions and cor- 
rections served to impair the statement the 
Massachusetts member was making of the views of the 
South Carolinian. Davis contended that if the duties were 
taken out of the raw material, because of the tariff in the 
United States, then there should be a discrimination in the 
jDrice of cotton from different portions of the world, and it 
should bear a higher or lower price according as the duties 
on manufactured articles were higher or lower in the coun- 

^ Register of Debates, pp. 863-866. =* Ibid., p. 870. 

» Ibid., pp. 842-862, for the former ; 873-884, for the latter. 
* Ibid., p. 855. 



204 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

try from which it was brought. But no such discrimination, 
existed, for cotton of the same quahty bore in market the 
same price, from whatever country it came.^ To tbis 
McDuffie rephed that he agreed with the statement of the 
fact that cotton bore the same price, come whence it might, 
but that the Southern planter received goods on which he 
paid a duty of two hundred and fifteen per cent, while the 
planter of Brazil received goods on which he paid a duty of 
only fifteen per cent. That was the reason why the South- 
ern planter was ground down and the other was not. Davis, 
in his rejoinder, argued that if the duties were deducted 
from the raw material and paid, as the gentleman had 
asserted, by the grower, because the purchaser controlled 
the market, then it was clear that less would be deducted 
from Brazilian cotton than from ours, and there would 
be a discrimination in price — a difierence in the value. 
He had shown that there was no such difiference, and 
the gentleman had admitted it. McDufiie, however, 
showed that his own argument was not that the Brazilian 
grower could not raise his price, but that the American 
grower could not.^ Davis, in the latter part of his re- 
marks, speaking of the Southern planters, observed : 
" They aim to build up the cotton, tobacco, and rice inter- 
ests at the expense of the rest of the nation, to make nine 
millions of people bow down to three millions, to constrain 
us to give up the market to them and ruin ourselves, that 
they may try an idle experiment to see if they cannot obtain 
a larger price for cotton." ^ 

Crawford, of Pennsylvania, on a subsequent day, replied 
to McDufiie's question as to State bounties, which he ad- 
mitted had not been answered : " Does not the 

Crawford. • ,^ • xi x i 

sagacious gentleman perceive that such a meas- 
ure would be worse than useless, that the bounty given 
would be for the benefit of the citizens in the neighboring 
States whose manufactures would be undersold by those 

^ Register of Debates, p. 877. * Ibid., p. °^" 

» Ibid., p. 883. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 205 

receiving the bounty, and that the advantage could not be 
confined to the citizens of one State ?" ^ Among other 
speakers were Barnwell, who agreed with his colleague that 
producers paid the duty;^ Wayne, of Georgia;^ Young; 
Cambreleng, in reply to McDuffie and Davis; ^^^^^^ 
Everett, of Massachusetts, whose solution of the speakers. 
question raised by McDufBe was that what in its last form 
was a Southern staple was in reality in part the produce of 
other portions of the country.* He said that the planter 
paid the tax as consumer, not as producer. Unlike Gor- 
ham, he did not concede that there was any case in which 
the producer and not the consumer paid the duties. He 
gave it as his deliberate opinion that the States most bene- 
fited by the laws for the protection of manufactures were 
those which lay south of the Potomac. His reason was 
that the South held a monopoly in slaves, that this species 
of property depreciated because of the state of the cotton, 
rice, and tobacco market, and that it could be profitably 
sold to the sugar planters of Louisiana.^ Drayton quoted 
Mr. Huskisson's declaration in the House of Commons in 
1827 that he had had the good fortune to persuade the 
House within a few years to repeal fifteen hundred restric- 
tions and prohibitory statutes.* But Denny, of Penn- 
sylvania, introduced into the discussion certain passages 
from the same British statesman, which based the British 
system of revenue on the lowest tariflJ" consistent with the 
support of government and internal industry, for the pur- 
pose of showing that the system after all was protective.'' 
McDuffie's present position was contrasted with his view in 
1825 in his speech on the Cumberland Road, where he 
said : " The consumer does not pay the tax, but he pays it 
in the price of the article." ^ 

The advice of Burges, of Rhode Island, to the Southern 



1 Eegister of Debates, p. 891. ^ Ibid., pp. 892-896. 

' Concluded May 7 ; ibid., p. 896. * Ibid., p. 904. 

6 Ibid., p. 906. « Ibid., p. 913. 

T Ibid., p. 918. * Ibid. 



206 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

people that they should relieve themselves from distress by 

"working less and making more," was also tendered by 

a number of other protection speakers.^ He 

advice. averred that the cotton planter of South Carolina 
had no more connection with the commerce of the United 
States than had the tea planter of China.^ The planter was 
not obliged to take any part of his cotton crop in any com- 
modity. He also claimed that South Carolina shared with 
New England the bounty on fish, and that not one article 
of use among the slaves bore a cent of duty. The whole 
clothing of a slave cost less than five dollars yearly.^ On 
the contrary, New England labor consumed tea, coffee, sugar, 
and fancy goods. The labor of the North, he contended, 
made prosperous by the American system, paid into the 
Treasury a greater amount of import duty than even the 
South Carolina capitalists themselves.^ Further beneficence 
of the protective system as respected the South was thus 
pointed out : " The tariff, the tariff, I say, gives to the cotton 
planters of South Carolina a monopoly of the whole cotton 
market of the United States. This monopoly is secured to 
them by a duty of thirty-three per cent., by a perfect pro- 
tection." The monopolist, he contended, was the South 
Carolina planter, lord of a thousand laborers, whose only 
care was to feed, to thrive, and to rail at the whole working 
world who do not drive slaves, and make cotton and tobacco.® 

The ingenious but unsound argument of McDufiie, that 
the producer paid all of the duties, was adopted by several 
McDuffie's ar- Southern debaters.^ Other prominent argu- 
gument that ments wcrc the effect of the dissolution of the 
paid aiTof^the Uuiou upou the anti-tariff States and upon the 
duties. States then enjoying protection.^ McDufl3.e 

made a subtle speech in reply to Gorham and Davis, in the 
course of which he charged substantially that Northern 
prosperity was based on Southern losses.^ The argument 

1 Register of Debates, p. 927. ^ Ibid., p. 932. 

"Ibid. * Ibid., p. 933. ■* i^id., p. 934. « Ibid. , p. 943. 

' Ibid., pp. 943, 937, 947, among others. » Ibid., p. 956. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 207 

that reduction of duties would affect seriously Northern in- 
dustries was met by the observation that gentlemen should 
reflect that they were giving the strongest possible confirma- 
tion of the alleged desolation produced by the duties upon 
the prosperity of the planting States, In his second speech 
Mr. McDufiie modified his former argument, having ob- 
served that it went too far. He said that " the 

1 1 T f> Ti T 1, 1 . 1 McDulBe sees 

prmcipal burden tell upon the producers, which that he has 
was something different from his contention that ^^^^ ^^ ^^' 
it all fell on them. He was very effective when he showed 
that Burges had not counted the importations for her own 
use made by South Carolina by way of New York, but only 
those through the port of Charleston.^ His analysis of the 
internal trade and of the relative consumption by the manu- 
facturing and planting States of imported articles was favor- 
able to the South. Replying to Gorham and Everett's posi- 
tion that the products of the Southern States belonged 
equally to other parts of the country, he said : " It results 
as a correlative proposition that the manufactures of the 
Northern States are not the productions of Northern but of 
Southern industry." ^ He assumed that if the Southern 
States were independent they would lay an average of twenty 
per cent, duties.^ The effect, he declared, would be to re- 
duce the burdens of taxation to the South, provide the 
equivalent of one hundred millions capital, and desolate and 
ruin the States remaining in the Union. 

McDufifie's amendment was rejected by a large majority.^ 
On the same day Buchanan's substitute for the committee's 



^ Register of Debates, p. 959. 

'Ibid., p. 961. 

' This was in reply to something Martindale, of New York, had said 
which McDuffie construed into a disparagement of Southern importance 
in the Union. It is a curious coincidence of history that when in 18()1 
the constitution of the Confederate States was adopted there should have 
been a provision forbidding the levying of a higher import duty than one 
strictly for revenue. In the first general revenue act, accordingly. May 
21, 1861, there were five classifications : five, ten, fifteen, twenl^, and 
twenty-five per cent. 

* Register of Debates, p. 964. 



208 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

bill was adopted \^dtll0^t division. Amendments to it were 
adopted, the effect of which was that non-enumerated arti- 
cles of iron and steel, or articles not charged Tvdth specific 
duties, should pay the same duty as was provided on bar or 
bolt iron in the act of 1828, and all such iron made liable 
to the same duty as was charged on iron in pigs. A draw- 
wooi iron mo- ^^^k was provided on railroad iron, the duty on 
lasses, etc. which was not less than twenty-five per cent, in 

quantities of not less than twenty tons.^ McDuflie's proposi- 
tion to repeal the wool, iron, cotton, cotton bagging, hemp, 
flax, indigo, and molasses duties as increased by the act of 
1828 was moved as an amendment to the substitute adopted 
by the committee of the whole, and was rejected by a 
vote of sixty-eight to one hundred and twenty.^ Some 
excitement arose over an effort by Barringer, of ISTorth 
Carolina, to procure the adoption of an amendment to 
reduce the salt duty. It was at first carried. But the 
point was made by Gorham and Storrs that the deci- 
sion of the House involved a reconsideration of the whole 
subject. Debate was resumed next day. The general result 
was that the passage of the salt amendment was 
bn/ passes the Tcconsidered, and a modified amendment pro- 
House and fails poscd Iw McDuffie was defeated. The vote on 

m the Senate. ■*■ , "^ 

the third reading of the bill was ayes one hun- 
dred and fifteen, noes twenty-four. The bill passed the 
House on May 13 by a vote of one hundred and twenty- 
seven to forty-one.^ It was lost in the Senate. 

The bill of 1830 contained nine sections, the third and 
ninth of which were intended especially to increase the pro- 
tection on woollen and cotton goods and certain grades of 
iron. There were many safeguards ];)rovided against fi'auds 
on the revenue. One of the provisions was that whenever 
goods of which wool or cotton was a component part, of 
similar kind but different quality, were found in the same 
package, it should be the duty of the appraiser to adopt 

^ Register of Debates, p. 965. 

* The question was divided. 

^ Register of Debates, pp. 979, 987 ; Senate Journal, p. 645. 



THE DEBATE OF 18S0 AND OTHER EVENTS. 209 

the value of the best article as the average value of the 
whole. 

Other measures considered at this session have been re- 
ferred to above. A number of additional motions to secure 
a reduction of the duty on salt were pressed, but ^^^-^^ 
were defeated.^ On the 14th of May Cambre- Navigation, 
leng's navigation bill was laid on the table with the consent 
of himself and other low tarifl* advocates. The bill of the 
"Ways and Means Committee reducing the salt duty after 
December 31, 1831, to ten cents was opposed j^^^ 37. sait 
by Ingersoll with an amendment to reduce the duty reduced, 
duty on molasses.^ But the bill finally passed intact on the 
27th of May.3 

Memorials and counter-memorials on the reduction of the 
iron duties were presented in the Senate, respectively by the 
blacksmiths and the iron manufacturers of Phila- petiyons for 
delphia.^ On the 26th of February, Hayne, the reduction 

^ . 1-1111 of the iron du- 

from the select committee which had been ap- ties. February 
pointed on the subject, reported in favor of the ^^' 
petitions for reduction. A contest having arisen between 
the high and low tariff parties on the reception of a minor- 
ity report, Webster's motion to table the whole question 
prevailed.^ At this session an adverse report was made on 



1 Register of Debates, pp. 994, 1016, and other pages. 

' Reported by IVIcDuffie on the 19th of May. 

3 Eegister of Debates, p. 1139. 

* Ibid., vol. vii., pp. 41^4, 214, 313. 

^ Ibid., p. 317. This very able report is found on page 105 of the 
appendix to vol. vii. of the Register of Debates (second session, Twenty- 
first Congress.) "In the examination which they have made of this 
subject," says the report, "the committee have been forcibly struck with 
the sound and conclusive reasons which the petitioners have adduced in 
support of the position that a low duty on the raw material is the only 
just and effectual means by which American manufactures can receive a 
wholesome encouragement; that the due proportion which all admit 
ought to be preserved between the duty on the raw material and that on 
the manufactured article can, in this instance, be obtained only by a re- 
duction of the duty on the former ; and that such a measure, whilst it 
would duly encourage the American mechanics and lessen the tax upon 
consumers, would not be injurious to the owners of the rich and valuable 

14 



210 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

a bill, introduced by Brown, of North Carolina, reducing 
the duty on sugar. Leave was refused Benton to intro- 
duce a bill to repeal the salt duty.^ He was as zealous in 
this cause as his venerable friend, Mr. Macon, had ever 
been. The leading point in his speech on a subsequent 
occasion was that the amount of taxation was two mil- 
lions and a quarter upon an article of prime necessity to 
the poor the original cost of which article was only three- 
quarters of a million dollars. His salt amendment to the 
bill reducing the duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa was 
rejected.^ 

Benton was prolific at this time of measures for the re- 
duction of the tariff. His " bill to provide for the abolition 
Benton's tariff ^^ Unnecessary duties, to relieve the people of 
reform zeal. sixteen miUious of taxes and to improve the 
condition of agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navi- 
gation of the United States," was professedly based on 
Jefferson's idea of equivalents; that is, duties were to be 
lowered to such nations as might by treaty reciprocate.^ 
" It proposes," he said, " that Congress shall select the arti- 
cles for abolition of duty, and then leave it to the Executive 
to extend the provisions of the act to such powers as will 
grant us equivalent advantages." The bill included silks, 
worsteds, linens, wines, coffee, cocoa. Oriental fruits, nuts, 
drugs, and many other articles. One of the notable pro- 
visions was the repeal of the duty on alum salt and the 
bounty and allowance system as to fish. Upon a question 
whether the Senate was competent to originate such a 
measure, one of the sections providing for the raising of 
duty on certain articles, Benton, at Webster's suggestion, 
withdrew the bill. 



iron mines of the United States, and so far from diminishing the re- 
sources of the country, that such a measure would add greatly to the 
comforts of the people and promote their prosperity in peace and security 
in war." 

^ Register of Debates, pp. 103, 120, 194 ; Appendix, Ixxii. 

' Ibid., p. 428. Benton introduced one bill, and withdrew it. 

s Ibid., vol. vi., pp. 172-179. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 211 

Tlie House bill reducing the duties on tea, 
coffee, and cocoa passed the Senate May 11, coa'reduced*^^' 
1830.1 

The bill to exempt (in effect to refund duties on) certain 
articles coming under operation of the act of May, 1828, 
which articles had been ordered and the order for which 
could not be countermanded, and where the goods had been 
actually imported before the Ist of September in the regular 
course of business, was rejected in the Senate after some 
debate.^ 

On the 25th of February, 1831, Benton introduced six- 
teen resolutions on foreign commerce, advocating a reduc- 
tion of duty on articles not produced in the 
United States, admitting one-half of the imports 2b^' Bentovs 
free of duty. The free list contained linens, ^^^t*^*^° "^^^o^^- 

•^ , . ' tions. 

worsted stuff goods, several descriptions of 
woollens, fine cottons, silks, wines, coffee, etc. The prin- 
ciple of equivalence entered. Foreign nations were offered 
beef, pork, fish, live stock, grain, tobacco, spirits made of 
grain or molasses, furs, lumber, naval stores, silk, wool, and 
other articles. At the request of their author, the resolu- 
tions were referred, with no intention that they should be 
acted upon at that session.^ 

Efforts were made to procure a repeal of the duties on 
bar iron, cotton bagging, and brown sugar.* 

At the second session of the Twenty-second Congress the 
Committee on Manufactures reported a bill to repeal the act 
of May 29, 1830, reducing the salt tax, and an „ 

•J ' ' o ^ 7 ^ Twenty-second 

angry debate arose on the subject. Spaight, of congress, sec- 
North Carolina, said that the South was on the 
eve of rebellion. "Yes, sir, the day is fast approaching 
when the people of the South will arise in their majesty 
and stalk the avenues of this House and take vengeance on 
their oppressors. Yes, sir, I fear this House, under which 



^ Kegister of Debates, p. 432. 

* Ibid., p. 452. » Ibid., pp. 285, 312. 

* Ibid., pp. 355, 359, 456, 4G5, 486, 543, 809, 828. 



212 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

they claim the right to tax us, will be made to reel to and 
fro like a drunken man." ^ Tucker, of South Carolina, ex- 
pressed regret that the gentleman had made these 
over the salt remarks. He said that it was his own wish 
^^^^' to put down excitement. But Thompson, of 

Georgia, averred that the people of the South, if the bill 
was passed, would be driven to the necessity of resistance. 
The bill was tabled after its second reading.^ 

A report written by Polk, chairman of the select commit- 
tee of the House on the subject appointed to consider that 
The surplus portiou of the President's message, presented a 
revenue. summary of the question of distributing the sur- 

plus revenue. A debate followed on the motion to print the 
report. The resolution was agreed to finally.^ 

From the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
made at the first session of the Twenty-second Congress, it 
appears that in the year the accruing duties 
the^lecreta^ Were $29,951,915; the drawbacks payable, 
of the Treas- $4,001,665. By Comparison with other recent 
years the following facts were seen : In 1829 
the accruing duties were $27,689,731 ; the drawbacks pay- 
able, $4,213,168. In 1830 the accruing duties were $28,- 
299,159 ; the drawbacks payable, $4,511,182." The subject 
of the tariff was precipitated by resolutions offered by 
Bouldin, of Virginia, and Dearborn, of Massachusetts, the 
Tarifl proposi- letter's providing for the exemption from duties 
tions. on wood, teas, coffee, wines, pepper, spices, and 

indigo, not exceeding in market price in the United States 
twelve cents a pound. This was withdrawn.^ Bouldin's reso- 
lution provided for an inquiry by the Commerce Committee 
into the practical effect of the revenue laws, whether they 
were prohibitory or not, with specific information. The de- 
bate on the reference of this proposition was quite extended, 



^ Register of Debates, p. 572. 

* Ibid., p. 616. The vote was one hundred and forty-five to forty-one. 
»Ibid., vol. vii., p. 620. 

* Ibid., p. 1440. 5 Ibid., pp. 1442, 1446. 



THE DEBATE OF 1S30 AND OTHER EVENTS. 213 

and embraced tlie whole question of minimum duties.^ It 
began on the 13th and concluded on the 24th of January. 
During this discussion, which was deprecated 
by McDuffie as premature, Appleton, of Massa- ^^"^^ ^^24. 
chusetts, claimed to know from an intimate friend who had 
passed a great part of the session of 1816 in the Congress 
what influenced South Carolina to lead in the establishment 
of that tariff, and especially to propose minimum duties. 
South Carolina was assured, he said, that under the protec- 
tion of this minimum, imposing a specific duty of six and 
one-fourth cents the square yard on the inferior cottons, 
the American cotton might be successfully manufactured 
in this country, and thus made to supersede the cottons 
then in use, the product both of foreign manufacture and 
foreign soil. In supporting this measure, therefore, con- 
tinued the Massachusetts member, whatever other mo- 
tives may have influenced her. South Carolina was follow- 
ing the dictates of an enlightened self-interest, — nay, more, 
of an enlightened and enlarged patriotism.'^ McDuffie 
replied by saying that he was glad that the gentleman 
had made it his duty, as it was clearly in his (McDufl[ie's) 
power, to vindicate the Representatives of South Caro- 
lina from unjust and ungenerous aspersions that had been 
brought against them elsewhere. He then recapitulated 
the provisions of the tariff of 1816 : that it provided for 
a diminution of duties from twenty-seven and thirty-three 
per cent, to twenty-five, which, after a certain period, was 
to be reduced to twenty. South Carolina had no such 
interested sagacity as the gentleman from Massachusetts had 
given her credit for. Look into the records of the proceed- 
ings, he continued, and see if a word was uttered in favor of 
that act on the ground assumed by the gentleman.^ Wilde,, 
of Georgia, declared that he, too, was in the House at 
the time referred to. There was no member whose opin- 
ions received so much respect and attention as those of 



Register of Debates, pp. 1546, 1549, 1558, 1568, 1595, 1599, 1625. 
Ibid., p. 1602. " Ibid., p. 1607. 



214 A HISTORY OF THE ^SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

William Lowndes. That man was no friend to high 
duties. He voted in favor of a proposition made by his 
colleague to reduce to twenty per cent., and the South- 
ern vote was the same way. The minimum, "Wilde ex- 
plained, was intended to affect the coarse cottons of 
India, with a view to prevent the exportation of specie.^ 
The resolution, as amended by Davis, was adopted. In its 
final form it provided for an enquiry and report by the Com- 
mittee on Manufactures into the effect of the revenue laws, 
designating the manner in which the sum upon which the 
duties were made up was assessed, and also the per cent, 
upon goods subject to the square yard duty, and whether 
any goods were prohibited by the amount of duties; also, 
as to whether there were frauds, and, if so, how they were 
to be prevented ; also, whether the statute value of the 
pound sterling ought to be so modified as to conform to the 
value in the United States.^ 

Drayton, on the 23d of January, presented the anti-nullifi- 
cation memorial from South Carolina, protesting against the 
laws of the United States imposing high duties 

The anti-nulli- ^ . i t p i 

fication memo- on foreign merchandise for the protection of 
"^' manufactures. It was set forth that the evils 

under which South Carolina was suffering were obvious and 
alarming; that if other causes conspired to reduce the in- 
come of her citizens, it was the tarifi' alone which denied 
them the right of converting that reduced income into such 
an amount of the necessaries or conveniences of life as 
would certainly be at their command under the revenue 
system of moderate duties; that those difficulties, though 
great, might be tolerated if the burden was equal, but they 
were greatly exaggerated by the consideration that the bene- 
fits of the tariff were confined to the manufacturing States, 
and that South Carolina felt the weight of the protecting 
system but received no part of the compensation. The 
memorial disclaimed altogether the language of violence 
and intimidation, but the Union party insisted that it was 

1 Register of Debates, p. 1609. » Ibid., p. 1625. 



THE DEBATE OF 1S30 AND OTHER EVENTS. 215 

the duty of the government to abstain from such legislation 
as was not in accordance with the spirit and opinions of the 
people.^ A short sectional debate occurred on Drayton's 
motion to refer the memorial to the Ways and Means Com- 
mittee, to which some of the friends of protection objected. 
Finally it was so referred.^ The journeymen tailors of Phila- 
delphia presented on the same day, through Drayton, a peti- 
tion praying a reduction of the tarift' twenty-five per cent.'* 

On February 8, McDuffie, from the Committee on "Ways 
and Means, reported a bill to reduce and equalize the duties 
on imports. In the brief debate on that day 
various members of the committee expressed McDuffll^re- 
their dissent from the report.* Ingersoll and ^^^^ * ^"^ 
Gilmore agreed in the matter of the protective 
policy in opposing the report, and Verplanck did not concur 
in that part which represented that the burdens of the tariti' 
were borne altogether by the cotton and planting States. 
He thought that a heavy weight was laid on the free laborer 
of the North, as well as upon commercial enterprise.' 
Nothing more occurred on the subject in the House until 
the 23d of May, when John Quincy Adams „ 

*" , . May 23. 

presented a report and bill from the Committee j. q. Adams's 
on Manufactures. The bill was based, with im- ''^p^''*- 
portant departures, on the bill and report of the Secretary 
of the Treasury, which had been referred to the committee. 
There was only a general concurrence of the committee in 
the bill.s 

The general debate on the former measure opened on the 
28th of May by an extended argument in its favor by its 
author. As a whole, it was a stronger and May 28. 
more lucid exposition of his favorite theory of g^"*^^^^ debate, 
the working of the tarifi' than his speech in the last Con- 
gress. The proposed reduction on leading articles, he ex- 

' Register of Debates, p. 1619. 

^ Ibid., p. 1024. Denny proposed the Committee on Manufactures, but 
was induced by Burges and Everett to withdraw his motion. 
' Ibid., p. 1625. ■• Ibid., p. 1768. 

* Ibid., p. 1764. « Ibid., p. 3090. 



216 A mSTORF OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

plained, was from the 30th of June, 1832, to twenty-five 
per cent, ad valorem; to tlie 30th of June, 1833, to eighteen 
and three-fourths per centum, and to June 30, 1834, to 
twelve and one-half per centum, and was treated as a grad- 
ual reduction sufficient to produce revenue for all necessary 
expenses, and as an act of justice tq the Southern States.^ 
lie estimated the ordinary and permanent expenses at eight 
million dollars, and the income under the proposed tariff at 
twelve million dollars, leaving a surplus for pensions and 
contingencies of four million dollars. McDuffie, one of the 
most original and eloquent of the Southern leaders, turned 
the argument from its usual course, and asserted that the 
bill was a " generous and liberal overture" by the South to 
the over-protected North. He denied that injustice would 
be inflicted upon the manufacturers of the country, but ad- 
mitted that they would " sustain damage without injury." 
On the apprehended invasion of the United States by for- 
eign manufactures, he held that they could never come and 
be brought into competition with domestic manufactures 
until they had ceased to be the productions of foreign and 
had become the productions of American industry.^ The 
controversy, then, he argued, resolved itself into a competi- 
tion between the Southern planters and the ISTorthern manu- 
facturers for 8uppl}dng the market of the United States mth 
certain descriptions of manufactures.^ 

Mr. McDuffie restated, with farther modification, his old 
view that the producer of exports paid the duty. " The 
McDuffie modi- trutli is," he Said, "that when a small portion 
fies his theory ouly of a Certain description of commodities is 

about the pro- _ . ,,...., 

fiucer paying sct apart tor taxation, and a discrimmatmg duty 
the duty. j^ levied upon that portion, it follows of neces- 

sity that the greater part of the burden imposed upon these 



1 Register of Debates, pp. 3120-3170. 

' Ibid., p. 3126. This was the leading prop in the arch that supported 
his bridge. 

^ Ibid., p. 3132. He contended that the protecting duties inflicted 
greater injury on Southern planters than they conferred benefits on 
Jv^orthern manufacturers. 



THE DEBATE OF ISSO AND OTHER EVENTS. 217 

selected and proscribed articles must fall upon their pro- 
ducers." But he admitted that "the precise proportion 
which the consumers and producers respectively bear of 
the burdens imposed must be in some degree conject- 
ural. "^ 

Impressed by a sense of the necessity for union and har- 
mony, Crawford yet felt that the prosperity of the nation 
was intimately connected with an adherence to the existing 
policy of protection.^ In reply to McDuffie, 
Appleton contended that the impost duty was ^pp^^'o°- 
incorporated into the price of the commodity imported, and 
the payment of a tax depended on the fact of a purchase. 
In the purely financial and practical argument near the 
close of the speech he seems to have had some advantage 
of McDuffie. But in his final statement he asserted without 
proof that the value of any part of the productions of the 
planting States w^as not diminished by the tariff; on the 
contrary, cotton culture had been increased palpably by the 
establishment of cotton manufactures in the country.^ He 
said that it was remarkable that the opposition to the tariff 
was in proportion to the number of slaves, and greatest in 
South Carolina. The facts as they appeared suggested the 
enquiry, he thought, whether this cheap slave labor did not 
paralyze the industry of the whites. He declared that he 
had made all possible investigation, and he had found that 
the picture of distress by the gentleman from South Caro- 
lina was not confirmed; rice planters were never more 
prosperous, and cotton planters were said to be in no 
distress.* 

Bouldin remarked that the convention which framed the 
Constitution had expressly Avithheld from Congress the right 
to protect manufactures, which was, therefore, BouMm's 
reserved to the States.^ He denied that the ^'®^- 
complaint in the South came only from the rich planters ; 



» Register of Debates, p. 3141. ' Ibid., p. 3172. 

3 Ibid., p. 3203. * Ibid., p. 3205. f* Ibid., p. 3212, 



218 A HISTORY OF THE, SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

he himself represented in a peculiar manner the small free- 
holders. On June 1, the committee of the whole took 
up the bill from the Committee on Manufac- 

June 1. -*■ 1 •! n /• 

The McDuffle turcs, after having voted to strike out all after 
bill destroyed, ^j^^ enacting words of the McDuflie bill.^ The 
debate proceeded. Drayton observed that opposite senti- 
ments on the tariff had not grown out of party dissensions; 
differences had become geographical. The protective system 
generated the bitterest animosities, and he therefore urged 
upon the House the adoption of a middle ground.^ He 
dwelt upon the real evils of protection, but controverted the 
the right of a minority to arrest the execution of laws. 

Stewart, of Pennsylvania, saying that the bill from the 
Treasury w^ould operate to increase taxation by increasing 

^ . revenue, offered a substitute. He drew an ironi- 

A substitute , ' ^ 

bill. Stewart cal picture of the distress that would ensue if 
the bill was not passed. The alternative, he 
said, was to go hat in hand to some Southern nabob with 
his thousand slaves and his six hundred votes and beg leave 
to hoe corn at six pence a day among his negroes.^ " If 
these are South Carolina's terms of compromise, I say, for 
one, let her go." He added : " The Union would remain 
unbroken, although for a season rebellion reared its bloody 
standard." ^ He thought, however, that she would not incur 
the perils of civil Avar. A great part of his argument was 
directed to maintaining the assertion that the South was try- 
ing to break up Northern industry, although protection was 
the policy which benefited all alike.^ The Stewart bill was 
essentially the same as that offered by Dickerson in the 
Senate. The chief features were ten per cent, reduction for 
two years, negro clothing free of duty, and reduction of 
duties on unprotected articles.^ As the debate proceeded, 
the arguments were repeated, the history of tariff legislation 
was restated, and sectional feeling engendered at the same 



^ Register of Debates, p. 3242. " Ibid., p. 3263. 

» Ibid., p. 3270. * Ibid., p. 3271. ^^Ibid., p. 3276. 

« Ibid., p. 3290. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 219 

time and by the same speakers by whom it was deplored. 
Davis, of Massachusetts, cited the messages of the Governers 
of South Carohna, Georgia, and Alabama, and „, 

' o ' ■ The complam- 

the figures of the census, to prove that the people ing southem- 
of the cotton States were not suflfering. The they are not 
actual annual increase in the production of raw s"*^"^""?- 
cotton in the United States since 1816 was two hundred 
and eighty-seven million pounds. The price had ranged 
between nine and fifteen cents; omitting 1825, the average 
price, he stated, was eleven and three-fourths cents. " Down 
^vith the duties on cloth," says the planter; and yet cloth 
which in 1816 had sold for fifteen cents was heavy in the 
market at eight and three-fourths in 1830.* He spoke of 
the "insatiate avarice of the greedy planters," and of "the 
lofty, manly spirit of independence which swelled the bosom 
of the free, enlightened laborer." The old argument that 
because the slaves were represented in Congress under the 
Constitution their masters should not complain, was used by 
the most intelligent of the protectionists. It was also again 
declared that the South was trying to monopolize the mar- 
kets, and that this was the true question between the oppos- 
ing sides.^ Mitchell, of South Carolina, replied, 

. ' 1 ' Mitchell. 

with great calmness and some force and dignity, 
to the speeches of Stewart and Davis.^ He showed that 
while all seemed anxious for an adjustment of the tariff, 
each individual was opposed to sacrificing any of his own 
interests. The demonstration was clear that the bill of 
Stewart's in one section stipulated reduction, while in 
another it artfully increased the price of the article to the 
consumer.* Mr. Adams's bill also had his unqualified dis- 
approbation, because it proposed to raise a revenue beyond 
the expenditures of government. He argued further that 
there was evidence of a popular demand for reduction found 
in the action of the Kew York protection convention and 



» Register of Debates, p. 3308. ' Ibid., pp. 3312-3316. 

» Ibid., pp. 3326-3340. * Ibid., p. 3328. 



220 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the introduction in the Senate of Mr. Clay's bill.' He de- 
clared that manufactures had flourished most in the periods 
when there was the smallest protection. He cited tigures in 
proof for the twenty years before and the twenty years suc- 
ceeding 1810 ; the former a revenue and the latter a protec- 
tive era.^ Mitchell's method was less sectional, and, there- 
fore, more eftective than McDufhe's. Bell, of 
Tennessee, made a philosophical and practical 
argument, deploring party divisions on sectional lines. 
Both parties were friendly to the Union on their own terms. 
The majority had less excuse than the minority in refusing 
to make a compromise. The first great care of an Ameri- 
can statesman was to preserve our free institutions; the 
next was so to administer their offices as to secure the com- 
fort and happiness of the greatest possible number of the 
citizens of the country.'^ The true American policy was the 
discouragement of the accumulation of great wealth in the 
hands of individuals.* These considerations led him to 
oppose the protective policy. He said that it was a disas- 
trous day when the great popular leaders of the House of 
Representatives gave way to the delusion that there was 
compensation for low prices in increased production, and 
established the system of governmental regulation.-' The 
complaint was imaginary ; if the prices of our productions 
were low, the prices of articles from abroad received in ex- 
change were also much reduced. The tarifl' only brought 
prosperity to the protected interests and the interests imme- 
diately surrounding. From his own observation, Kentucky 
was one of the States suft'ering most under its operation.^ 

Some of the friends of a protective policy admitted that 

there had been extensive losses in the South, produced by a 

fall in prices.'^ One of the ablest speakers on 

CfOIlCGSSlODS 

that side was Evans, of Maine, who addressed 
himself largely to the arguments of Bell and McDufiie. 

^ Register of Debates, p. 33:53. "^ Ibid., p. 3338. 

" Ibid., p. 3354. * Ibid., p. 3356. » Ibid., p. 3367. 

« Ibid., p. 3375. ^ Ibid., p. 3398. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 221 

The leading point in his contention was, that anything less 
than complete protection was illusory, and he therefore op- 
posed all compromise propositions.^ It was not a question 
of giving protection, but of withholding protection — of 
subverting interests. 

Clay, of Alabama, contended that this was not a question 
of South Carolina against the manufacturing States, with 
the Southern and Southwestern States standing oifas indif- 
ferent s})ectators : from the Potomac to the mouth of the 
Mississippi, all agreed as to the great and unequal burden 
of taxation.^ Nor did the Southern speakers forget to ad- 
duce the old argument that the tarijQ:' was un- 

° The old argu- 

constitutional.^ They quoted Webster on the mentofuncon- 
embargo act to sustain their position that the ^^^'"*^^^"^i'*y- 
regulation of commerce did not mean its destruction.^ One 
of the most interesting and well furnished of their debaters 
was Wilde, who said : " K one kind of industry alone is 
protected, it must be at the expense of all the rest. If all 
are protected alike, none are benefited. You 
merely enable me to put my hand mto my 
neighbor's pocket, and take out as much as you have previ- 
ously authorized him to take out of mine."^ His brilliant 
])icture-gallery of the worthies of the Fourteenth Congress 
who passed the tariff of 1816, and his defence of their 
action, is among the finest eftbrts of oratory made on the 
occasion, although perhaps too fervid and overloaded with 
flowers.® Choate commended to the minority 

, X 1 Choate. 

" the moral duty of acquiescence. In reply to 
Bell, this eloquent son of Massachusetts said that civil gov- 
ernment was instituted mainly for the care of property. 
"You," alluding to the Congress, "invited this property 
into this investment." '^ 

Northern speakers predicted the Deluge if the bill of the 

1 Kegister of Debates, p. 3422, * Ibid., p. .3457. 

Ubid., pp. 3459, .3530. * Ibid., p. 3461. * Ibid., p. 3477. 

^Choate, oh the following day, said that the praise was bestowed with 
much candor and discrimination. Ibid., 3514. 
' Ibid., p. 3516. 



222 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

"Ways and Means Committee were adopted, and argued 
that Massachusetts would have as much right to secede if 
Northern it Were passed as South Carohna would in the 
alarm. evcnt the protective system were continued.^ 
Choate's remedy for the excitement at the South was: 
"Find what are the articles of exclusive Southern con- 
sumption and important in the economy of the South, and 
relieve them of all protecting duty."^ The same orator 
also said, as if he were not so hopeful of his plan being 
made effectual, " There seems to be, I have feared, ground 
laid for a separation of the States, not so much in the faults 
of man as in the nature of things." ^ A remarkable ex- 
pression — apparently justifying as destiny what he deplored 
and sought by every ingenuity to thwart. Clayton, of 
Georgia, said he was a stockholder in a manufacturing 
company, and that he was of opinion that manufactures 
could be more profitably conducted at the South than they 
could be at the ITorth.* He made an impassioned denial 
of the charge that the South was disloyal. But he added: 
"Do not deprive us of all our blessings under the empty 
sound of Union." ^ 

The protection argument that the tariff was derived from 
the South was advanced farther by Sutherland, of Pennsyl- 
vania, who assigned its origin to Virginia, in Jefferson's ad- 
ministration. He said, notwithstanding repeated disclaimers 
of Southern men, that they desired the duty on cotton to 
remain, that if the duty were taken off, Pernambuco cotton 
would be famished to Northern manufacturers on advan- 
tageous terms.® Lewis, of Alabama, replied 

The cotton tax » , ' ' ^ 

claimed to be a that the South did uot Call for the repeal of the 
^ *^ *^^' cotton tax because it was a dead letter. Im- 
posed for revenue, it had served no purpose but to be cast 
into the teeth of Southern members as an instance of pro- 
tection to Southern industry.' He asked : "If the gentle- 

1 Register of Debates, p. 3520 (Choate). =* Ibid., p. 3524. 

» Ibid., p. 3525. * Ibid., p. 3554. * Ibid., p. 3567. 

« Ibid., p. 3563. 
^ Ibid., p. 3584. The debates bear out this assertion. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 223 

man is in favor of giving protection to all branches of 
national industry, why does he not give the South a sub- 
stantial, not a nominal, bounty on her cotton, rice, and 
tobacco ?" He declared that the South would not be satis- 
fied with less than the practical abandonment of the prin- 
ciple of protection.^ Twelve and one-half per cent, protection 
at the expense of the South was more than any Southern 
planter realized from his capital. 

The Southern protectionist took part in the debates. He 
was for moderation. Bullard, of Louisiana, stated that 
cotton planting in his section was more pro- The southern 
ductive than sugar. The superior productive- protectionist, 
ness of the Southwest had contributed to depress the 
southern Atlantic States. He thought that the diminished 
prosperity of the South was not attributable entirely to the 
tariff". He said that there would be no response to the cry 
of disunion from the State of Louisiana.^ Carson, of North 
Carolina, retorted with warmth that Louisiana enjoyed a 
benefit of two millions from the tarifil President Jackson 
had saved her from disunion.^ Burges, of Rhode Island, 
averred that the Southern, or anti-protection. States, paid 
about one-fortieth part of the tax raised by impost, consid- 
ering that they consumed all that they imported.* His ar- 
gument was based on the fundamental assumption that all 
of the Southern products which passed through the hands 
of Northern merchants to Europe were Northern importa- 
tions. He declared that the reduction of the tariff" would 
ruin the small manufacturers.® 

Consideration of the measure continued in the committee 
of the whole from the 18th to the 21st of June. A number 
of proposed amendments were rejected. Horace 

^ ^ •PIT June 18-21. 

Everett insisted upon protection for the wool- 
grower as the first object.^ Among the prominent protec- 

1 Register of Debates, p. 3585. ' Ibid., p. 3597. 

3 Thomas, of Louisiana, denied this charge, and his statement was ac- 
cepted by Carson. It related to the proceedings of the Legislature in 
1814. Ibid., p. 3563. 

* Ibid., p. 3621. » Ibid., p. 3647. « Ibid., p. 3671. 



224 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

tionist arguments were those of Adams, Stewart, Dearborn, 
and Davis. On the other side, Cambreleng was supported 
Great heat of hy Hoffinan and Eoot, also of New York, 
the debate. incidental protectionists. Adams and Archer 

The bill of 1832 ^ 

reported to the came iuto personal collision, and an angry col- 
coramittee of loquy occurrcd between Carson and Sutherland.^ 
the whole. Louisiana Representatives tried in vain to save 
sugar from reduction.^ The bill was reported from the com- 
mittee of the whole on the 21st of June, w^ith amendments. 
In the House, various points were raised by Edward 
Everett. " It seems to me," he remarked, " that this ques- 
tion of constitutionality, even on the nullifying 
principle, requires that the majority of the 
States should agree to nullify." McDuffie had spoken of 
the tyranny of a majority. Everett put w^hat he called a 
harder question ; " Suppose the minority is unreasonable, 
and denies the right of the majority, shall they prevent 
their exercising them ?" ^ His argument on nullification 
was very ingenious. He drew a picture of disasters and 
horrors which would follow the secession of a single State. 
There would be civil discord, eternal border warfare, for- 
eign wars and alliances. The State which seceded would 
bid farewell to republican government for herself and more 
likely for her sister States. " It is my firm conviction," he 
averred, " that the day which takes any State 

A beautiful ' . . i t» • • 

appeal for the from this Union givcs it to the British crown.' 
He made an impassioned, beautiful appeal for 
the Union, and in an address to McDuflie implored South 
Carolina " not to leave us." * 

A controversy arose, as in 1828, between the woollen 

manufacturing and the wool-producing interests. Amend- 

, . ments were offered by Davis and Adams, and 

The wool m- "^ _ , ' 

terests again wcre losf All amendment providing a draw- 
back on iron used in domestic industry was re- 
jected by an overwhelming majority, some of the Southern 

^ Eegister of Debates, p. 3690. ^ Ibid., p. 3691. 

» Ibid., p. 3765. * Ibid., p. 3770. ^ Ibid., pp. 3778, 3780. 



THE DEBATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 225 

low tariff men voting in the negative. Finally, on the 
27th of June, the bill was ordered to its third reading 
by a vote of one hundred and twenty-two to 
sixty-five. Among the yeas were Cambreleng, 
Mitchell of South Carolina, Polk, and other low tariff 
men ; and among the nays were Choate, the Everetts, Con- 
diet, Davis, and other protectionists, voting with McDufiie 
and the great body of the revenue reformers. 

McDufiie concluded the debate on the 28th of June with 
a speech of great power.^ He said that his bill had been 
put aside unceremoniously, and he analyzed 
the pending measure at considerable length McDuffie closes 
and with rigorous logic. He showed that the 
reduction, under the original bill, according to the estimate 
of the Secretary of the Treasury, would have been four 
million one hundred and seventy-seven thousand dollars, 
without an increase of importations. The alterations made 
would increase the amount of reduction to four million six 
hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars. The reduction 
on the entire list of imports received in exchange for 
Southern exports was only eight hundred and forty-four 
thousand dollars. But these reductions were much more 
than counterbalanced by other provisions of the bill rela- 
tive to cash duties and diminished credits on these protected 
articles. Assuming that such imports amounted to twenty- 
five millions, we had, he said, one million two hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars as the increase of the burdens of the 
protecting duties to be placed in contrast with a nominal 
reduction of four hundred and seventeen thousand dollars ; 
it resulted, therefore, that there was an increase of burden 
to the South of one million four hundred and six thousand 
dollars. The inequality, he contended, was greatly in- 
creased by the injustice exaggerated by the other provisions 
of the bill. The foreign exchanges of the ITorth were re- 
lieved to the extent of three million seven hundred and 
eighty thousand dollars. He remarked with what keen 

1 Register of Debates, pp. 3809-3830. 
15 



226 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

sagacity the gentlemen of tlie North could perceive the 
benefits of free trade when the products of their own in- 
dustry constituted the basis of it.^ On the other hand, he 
observed : " I will venture to affirm, sir, not only that the 
peculiar burdens of the South are undiminished by this 
bill, but that the protection which it gives to all the various 
classes of manufactures is decidedly greater than that which 
they received under the tarifl' of 1828. Can any one be so 
blind as not to see that the reduction, or, more properly, the 
repeal, of the duties on tea, coffee, dye-stufiB, manufacturing 
materials, and on most of the unprotected articles, will 
operate as an additional protection to the Northern manu- 
factures ? There are two modes of giving this protection 
to the manufacturing States : the one consists in imposing 
duties upon such articles as they make themselves; the 
other in taking otf or diminishing duties on such articles as 
they consume and do not make at home, but import from 
abroad and exchange for some of their own domestic pro- 
ductions." He thus replied to Everett's argument that if 
the cotton planter was the producer of the manufactures 
obtained for his cotton, he could only be so in the sense in 
which it might be said that the consumer of those manufac- 
tures was the producer of them : " The cotton planters pro- 
duce imported manufactures by an exchange abroad, and 
upon this exchange the protecting duty is levied ; whereas, 
all other consumers produce these manufactures by a domes- 
tic exchange upon which no duty is levied." ^ He said that 
his argument that protection diminished the value of Amer- 
ican cotton had been misrepresented. That argument re- 
ferred exclusively to the value of the article here. He 
called attention to the fact that Davis, of Massachusetts, and 
those with whom he acted, often maintained that the pro- 
tecting duties had the effect of diminishing the prices of 
protected articles in the United States. To avoid the ob- 
vious inference that this would throw the whole burden of 
the duty upon the American producers of imported manu- 

1 Register of Debates, p. 3813. » Ibid., p. 3817. 



THE DERATE OF 1830 AND OTHER EVENTS. 227 

factures, the planters, tliey alleged, he said, that the burden 
of the duty was thrown upon the foreign producers, the 
manufacturers abroad. McDuffie argued that this could 
only be done by a general reduction of price throughout the 
world. Our duty, fifty per cent., on eight millions of Eno-- 
lish cotton manufactures imported into this country out of 
her total product of one hundred and sixty millions, could 
not have the effect stated on prices.^ 

The bill of the Committee on Manufactures, as amended, 
passed the House on the same day by the vote of one hun- 
dred and thirty-two yeas to sixty-five nays.^ Cer- passage of the 
tain protected interests, not satisfied with the ^^"• 
amount of protection extended by the measure, voted with 
the straight-out foes of protection. On the other hand, a 
number of well-known low tariff members supported the 
bill because its professed object was reduction. Among the 
ayes were Archer, Bell, Cambreleng, Drayton, Polk, and 
"Wayne, anti-protectionists; and among the noes, Bates, 
Burges, Choate, Condict, Davis of Massachusetts, Denny, 
the Everetts, Stewart, Storrs, and "Watmough, protectionists. 

The subject of the tariff came up in the Senate on 
Smith's resolution, offered December 13, to the effect that 
the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to December is. 
furnish the Senate with his projd of a bill re- ^^ ^^^ senate. 
ducing duties in conformity with suggestions in his annual 
report.^ Tyler was chiefly instrumental in securing a favor- 
able report upon it from the Finance Committee. In his 
explanation he said that a great crisis had arrived. On the 
17th of the same month Poindexter introduced a resolution 
authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to report, with as 
little delay as possible, a detailed statement of the articles 
of foreign growth or manufacture on which, in his opinion, 
the existing rate of duties ought to be reduced, specifying 
the amount of reduction on each article separately, so as to 
produce the result of an aggregate reduction of the revenue 

1 Register of Debates, p. 3819. » Ibid., p. 3831. 

' Ibid., ix.. Part I., pp. 6, 10. 



228 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

of six millions of dollars on such manufactures as are classed 
as protective. The resolution also provided for a list of ar- 
ticles essential to our national independence in time of war, 
to be exempt from the proposed reduction.' After debate, 
the Senate decided, by a vote of twenty to fif- 

ecem r . ^^^^^ ^-^oi it would consider the resolution.^ 
One of the notable speeches of the day was that of Mangum, 
of IsTorth Carolina, who spoke indignantly of " the oppres- 
sions which by party and unprincipled combinar 
angum. ^^^g j^^^j bccu practised upon their brethren 
of the South." He opposed, as did Poindexter, calling on 
the Executive or any head of department for a bill embrac- 

smith, and iug such momcntous interests. The opposite 

others. vicw was advocated by Smith, who contended 

that the object was to secure facts, not opinions. The de- 
bate continued on the 3d and 4th of January. Holmes re- 
plied to Mangum, who, he said, had sounded an 

anuary , . ^|^^j,j^^ jj^ argued that a principle should not 
be surrendered under a threat of a dissolution of the Union.^ 
" Supposing," he illustrated, " New York, our buxom sister, 
to take it into her head to set herself down upon her sover- 
A homely iiius- ^iguty ; sir, stroug as she is, I would get a rod 
tration. ^^^^ whip her up, tell her to leave off crpng, and 

promise never to do so again. Then I would enquire into 
the grounds of her complaints, and do her justice." There 
were several cases in which the North might apply the 
Southern doctrine inconveniently for the South : one as to 
the public lands; another as to the rendition of fugitive 
slaves. He forewarned gentlemen that this doctrine of 
" reserved right" when applied to the relation of master and 
slave might produce a state of things too terrific for descrip- 
tion. The slaves in the South would soon learn to turn the 
principles of nullification to suit themselves. He explained 
that this expression was intended to mean after a dissolution 
of the Union, when " the free States would repose upon 

^ Register of Debates, p. 8. " Ibid., p. 16. 

» Ibid., p. 55. 



THE DEBATE OF 1S30 AND OTHER EVENTS. 229 

their sovereignty. They would not interpose if they could, 
and they could not if they would." ^ He contradicted Man- 
gum's assertion that there was an unprincipled comhination 
against the South, and asserted that the South would always, 
as in the past, rule the North. Several amendments were 
rejected, and after a verbal alteration to make the resolution 
express what the Secretary actually said, it was laid on the 
table.2 

The bill of 1832 passed the Senate on the 12th of July, 
by a vote of ayes thirty-two, noes sixteen, and Final passage, 
was approved by the President on the 14th of ^^^^ ^^" 
the same month.^ 



^ Register of Debates, p. 58. 

* Consideration of these resolutions was defeated on the 11th of January. 
Ibid., p. 60. 
'Ibid., p. 1293. 



CHAPTER V. 

NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 

Meantime, events were hurrying forward in Soutli Caro- 
lina. In his message to the Legislature, Governor Hamilton 
rejected the tariff of 1882 as a compromise. 

The tariff of 

1832 not re- He declared that it levied three-fourths of the 
S7otoa ^s'^'a federal revenue on the industry of the South- 
compromise ern States, and that the riffht to pass a tariff 

measure. . i r- t • i /^ 

lor protection was not to be found m the Con- 
stitution of the United States. " After ten years of suffer- 
ing and remonstrance," he continued, "we have at length 
arrived at least at the end of our hopes." He recommended 
the calling of a convention in obedience to public sentiment, 
and that all other matters be abstained from. The ratifica- 
tion by the Legislature of the Convention bill was followed 

by ffreat reioicine;. Artillery was fired ; brass 

Rejoicing over ./ d i» o ^ j 

the Convention bands played (by mistake) "Yankee Doodle," 
followed quickly by "Wha'll be king but 
Charlie ?" ^ But in the address of the Union members, they 
said of the bill that it was a measure which they esteemed 
to be destructive of the Constitution and ruinous to the peo- 
ple. They argued that the decision of cases under the rev- 
enue laws was confided expressly to the Supreme Court of 
the United States by the Constitution. The committee of 
the Union party announced that opposition to the progress 
of nullification was hopeless, and they offered the counsel 
that no ticket should be run, regarding it as unimportant 
whether or not there was a fall representation of the party's 
strength in the convention.^ 



^ Niles's Register, last half of 1832, pp. 173-175. 
» Ibid., November 10, 1832, p. 175. 
230 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 18SS. 231 

There was no opposition in Charleston to Hayne and the 
other nulhfication candidates. The nulhfiers without diffi- 
culty carried the State convention. The con- 
vention assembled at Columbia on the 19th of carry the state 
ITovember, ex-Governor Miller in the chair. it^^^'p'JoccSl 
Governor Hamilton was chosen permanent pres- ^"^^- Novem- 

ber 19. 

ident of the body. In his opening address 
Hamilton said : " It is scarcely a solecism to say that here 
are the people. This is the concentration of their sover- 
eignty. . . . We have the incontestable power of a sover- 
eign State." He also averred that his prayer was for the 
establishment by the deliberations of that body of the rights 
and privileges of their own people, and with those to give 
stability to the Union. On the succeeding day a committee 
of twenty-one, of which Judge Colcock was chairman, and 
Hayne, McDuffie, Harper, Miller, Pinckney, Barnwell, and 
several other distinguished men were members, was ap- 
pointed to consider the acts of Congress regarded as revolu- 
tionary, and to propose a mode of redress.^ This committee, 
through Hayne, reported on the 24th of !Novem- 

■1 ,, :3' J. -J x- J.* xi November 24. 

ber an " ordmance to provide tor arresting the xhe ordinance 
operation of certain acts of the Congress of the °^ Nuiiifica- 
United States purporting to be laws laying duties 
and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities." 
There were six paragraphs. The first was a preamble stat- 
ing grievances — the passage of " various acts . . . intended 
for the protection of domestic manufactures." The second 
was as follows : " We, therefore, the people of the State of 
South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and 
ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the sev- 
eral acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United 
States purporting," etc.,^ " are unauthorized by the Consti- 
tution of the United States, and violate the true meaning 
and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor bind- 
ing upon this State, its officers or citizens." " All promises, 



1 Niles, p. 219. 

* The acts of 1828 and 1832 are cited. Official Proceedings, p. 47. 



232 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

contracts, and obligations made or entered into," are de- 
clared to be " utterly null and void." The third proposition 
sets forth the unlawfulness of enforcing payment of duties 
by the State or United States authorities, and asserts that it 
is the duty of the Legislature " to adopt such means and 
pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this 
Ordinance and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the 
operation of the said acts (of the Congress) within the 
limits of this State from and after the 1st day of February 
next." The fourth paragraph was to prevent appeals to the 
United States Supreme Court ; the fifth, to provide an oath 
to obey the Ordinance, to be taken by officers under the 
State government. The final declaration was a threat of 
secession by the State if any measure of coercion should be 
adopted by the federal government. 

The convention was orderly and dignified. It distributed 

among the great leaders of the movement the labors and 

accorded the prominence appropriate for each. 

The conven- ^ 

tion. Its lead- To Harper was assigned the preparation or the 
®'^" Ordinance, to McDuflfte the address to the people 

of the United States, to Turnbull that to the people of the 
State, and to Hayne the general exposition of principles. 
The States in McDufiie's address are named separately, — as, 
" To the people of Massachusetts," etc.^ In these papers 
the whole question of variance between South Carolina and 
the federal government is discussed elaborately. It was de- 
clared in one of them that in the event of South Carolina 
" being driven out of the Union," all of the planting and 
some of the Western States " would follow by almost abso- 
lute necessity." ^ Hayne's exposition was ftill on the subject 
of the tariff, and defined clearly the difiference between an 
incidentally protecting and a protective tariff. It dwelt 
upon the sectional character of the latter. A power to regu- 
late condmerce, it was declared, did not confer a power to 
regulate manufactures and agriculture. As early as 1820 

^ Niles, p. 231 ; Official Proceedings, pp. 54, 68. 
» Ibid., p. 234. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 233 

South Carolina had protested in memorials and petitions to 
the Congress. Georgia, Virginia, North Carohna, Missis- 
sippi, and Alabama had earnestly remonstrated and warned.^ 
The convention adjourned to meet on the call of the presi- 
dent, or, in the case of his death, of a committee appointed 
for the purpose.^ 

The theory of nullification as it was now put in practice 
in South Carolina was to be judged and condemned both 
by those who held and those who reprobated p^ ^^^^ .^^ 
State rights doctrines. Governor Lumpkin, of "lent on the 

r^ ••!• • L ^ j.iT«i action of South 

Georgia, in his winter s message to the Legisla- Carolina. 
ture of that State, recalled its conflict with what ^- 1° the south. 
he called " federal usurpation," but remarked : " Nothing 
has transpired to lessen attachment or diminish our confi- 
dence in the good system of government under which we 
live." He said further: "I believe nullification to be un- 
sound, dangerous, and delusive in practice as well as 
theory."^ Governor Stokes, of North Carolina, rejoiced 
in his annual message that the people of that State had 
" wisely avoided any interference calculated to disturb tran- 
quility." " It is hoped," he continued, " that we shall cling 
to the union of the States as now connected." ^ In Alabama, 
where there were more adherents to the doctrine of nullifi- 
cation than in any other State except South Carolina, Gov- 
ernor Gayle spoke of nullification as "this deplorable ex- 
periment . . . growing into an evil not less to be deprecated 
than the tariff itself"^ The Senate of Tennessee, only one 
member not voting, denounced nullification as a heresy, but 
endorsed the Virginia resolutions of 1798 and the commen- 
tary thereon of Madison. Indeed, in the States of Tennes- 
see and Kentucky the doctrine received no countenance, and 
in Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana it 
was generally opposed.^ By a vote of one hundred and two 

^ Niles, p. 237. 

» Official Proceedings, pp. 79, 81. After prayers. The 31st of January 
was appointed to be a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. 
» Niks, vol. xliii., pp. 206-208. * Ibid., p. 219. 

5 Ibid., p. 220. « Ibid., December 1, p. 209. 



234 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

to fifty-one the House of Representatives of the Georgia 
Legislature adopted a resolution, which subsequently passed 
the Senate, declaring that nullification was abhorred, and 
that it was deemed a paramount duty to warn their fellow- 
citizens against adopting the mischievous policy of South 
Carolina.^ In the same State an anti-tariff" convention was 
held, at which the division of sentiment was so sharp that 
fifty-three of the more moderate members, headed by For- 
syth, seceded. The residue, sixty-eight in number, adopted 
resolutions for a general Southern convention, but postponed 
the adoption of any more definite plan.^ A committee of 
the Union party of South Carolina was present. 

In the North there was no sympathy with any demonstra- 
tion against the Union, for the whole situation of affairs, 
economical and political, had changed. But 

2. In the North. ,, . , • • , f ^ j'f± 

there was in some quarters a spirit oi hostility 
to the tariff only less violent than in the States of the South 
which refused to embrace South Carolina's proffered remedy. 
Union meetings were held in Boston and New York. Web- 
ster and Harrison Gray Otis were among the speakers at the 
former place. The Tammany Society of New York also, 
while expressing sympathy with their " Southern brethren," 
applauded the course of the President.^ At a somewhat 
earlier day Webster had spoken at Worcester, Massachu- 
setts, accepting nullification as a dismemberment of the 
Union, but denouncing the military language of the Presi- 
dent's Mends. These indiscreet politicians had talked of 
using an armed force before the power of the civil authority 
had been exerted, and against this Webster protested with 
all of his eloquence.* But the protectionist press had from 
the early development of the policy of nullification referred 

1 Niks, pp. 251, 287. 

' Ibid., p. 221. Forsyth's party withdrew, because, as they alleged, the 
convention refused adequate scrutiny into its authority. In an address 
which they issued the seceders claimed that twenty counties were unrep- 
resented. Berrien, of the part of the body which remained, reprobated 
the nullification doctrine. 

« Ibid., pp. 293-295. 

* Ibid., November 17, p, 186. The speech was delivered on October 12. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1SS3. 235 

to it as "a course of evil and dislaonor."^ Substantially 
protectionist, the North could not only not approve resist- 
ance to the government under the circumstances, but must 
of necessity support the policy which had produced the 
Southern opposition to the conduct of the government. 

Meantime, some statesmen of the old State rights school 
broached the theory of a general convention to alter the 
Federal Constitution. To a local committee ^,^ , , 

Old school 

who waited upon him to ascertain his views, ex- state rights 
Secretary Crawford said that he favored this ^n^tuutlonai* 
policy. His idea was to ascertain what the convention. 
strength of the respective tariff and anti-tariff elements was : 
then, he averred, if the former refused to modify the tariff, 
we, meaning the Southern States, would see the necessity 
for taking ultimate measures. He remarked further, with 
the caution of the experienced politician, that if the num- 
bers and population of the States disposed to secede and 
form a new confederation were not sufficient for self-protec- 
tion, he would deem it umvise to separate. Better submit, 
was his argument, to exactions at home than to tyranny 
abroad. Crawford's recommendations, therefore, were 
these : A general convention, if possible ; if not, a Southern 
convention, with a separate confederacy, if that seemed 
practicable; in no event nullification, which he rejected as 
not being a constitutional, peaceable measure, and not being 
even a suitable revolutionary measure.^ The extreme State 
rights party laughed at this effort" to secure a ^^^ proposi- 
change of the tariff policy from a large major- tion derided by 
ity in favor of that policy and interested vitally 
in its preservation. There might have been some wisdom 
in the alternative proposed, a Southern convention, if the 
purpose had been to resort to ultimate measures, and if, as 



* This is the expression of the Boston Advertiser, August 3, 1832. But 
there were earlier utterances of the kind. 

* Alluding to the alleged peacefulness and constitutionality of nullifica- 
tion, he said : " I verily believe that no man in his senses ever believed 
it to be so." Niks, p. 185. 



236 A HISTORY OF THE' SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Crawford suggested, the resources for self-preservation were 
in existence. In tlie state of parties and on the issues be- 
fore the public at that time, such a powerful combination of 
States was not feasible, and no very serious consideration 
was given to the proposition, however respectable the states- 
men who originated or supported it. General Jackson was 
the national hero of the hour. Even in Virginia, by whose 
sturdy old Republicans he was not loved, there was no party 
sufficiently strong to overturn his ascendancy. The senti- 
ment of Union was superadded to practical interest in some 
other quarters, and everywhere, except in a few localities. 
South Carolina and Alabama and among the special ad- 
mirers of Mr. Calhoun in other Southern States, there was 
either repugnance or coldness towards the doctrine that a 
State could remain in the Union and at the same time 
nullify its laws and resist its authority. 

The South Carolina Legislature convened on the 27th of 
^November. Governor Hamilton's message stated the ac- 
November''7 couut between the State and the United States.^ 
The South Car- The latter claimed a further sum of sixty thou- 
ture. Gover- sand dollars interest. Reviewing briefly the 
nor's message, ^ctiou of the Congrcss, he said that the die had 
been at last cast, and South Carolina had at length appealed 
to her ulterior sovereignty as a member of the confederacy, 
and planted herself upon her reserved rights. He defined the 
measure of legislation which they had to employ at the crisis 
to be, " the precise amount of such enactments as may be 
necessary to render it utterly impossible to collect within our 
limits the duties imposed by protective tariffs thus nullified." 
He refrained from suggesting details, but proposed that the 
Governor be authorized to issue certificates of clearance to 
vessels outward bound in case the collectors refused to do 
so. Noticing the rumors that coercion might be resorted to, 
he remarked that such threats were once " officially pro- 
mulged," and that " we must be prepared for this alterna- 
tive." He therefore recommended a revision of the militia 

^ NUes, December 15, p. 215. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 237 

laws, the details of a volunteer system, and provisions for 
mounting heavy ordnance ; for a quartermaster service, and 
that the President be requested to vacate the citadel at 
Charleston, occupied at the joint instance of the city and the 
State, in order to make room for State troops and muni- 
tions. " I cannot, however, but think," he said, in conclu- 
sion, " that in a calm and dispassionate review by Congress 
. . . that the arbitration by a call of a convention of all the 
States, which we sincerely and anxiously seek and desire, 
will be accorded to us. To resort to force is at once to 
prefer a dissolution to its preservation." * 

On the day of the passage of the Ordinance the conven- 
tion enacted a replevin law.^ The purpose in part was to 
carry the Ordinance into efiect, and it was one 
of several measures intended to thwart the fed- piemenur/"^ 
eral government in the execution of revenue measures by 

, . , . rT\^ • T rt* ^ South Carolina. 

legislation. This act was to take etiect on the 
1st of February, 1833. It enabled the owner or owners of 
goods seized by United States officers and held for the pay- 
ment of duties to recover such articles by giving bond. 
The process was through State officers and the State courts. 
The punishment provided in Section 10 of this act for 
attempts to recapture goods so replevined was a fine of not 
more than ten thousand dollars nor less than three thousand 
dollars, and imprisonment of not more than two years and 
not less than one year ; besides, the oflender was liable to 
indictment for other offences committed in the act. The 
keepers of jails were to be fined for imprisoning any persons 
arrested under the collection act of the United States, and fines 
were also imposed in other sections for renting a house to 
be used temporarily for such a purpose, and imprisonment 
added as a further deterrent. This act and the convention 
test oath and militia laws passed by the Legislature were 
deemed necessary to protect the interests of the State in the 

* The message bore date November 27, the day of the assembUng 
of the Legislature. 

' Register of Debates, Twenty-second Congress, Appendix ; Nlles's Reg- 
ister, vol. xliii., p. 327. 



238 A HISTORY OF THE- SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

delicate crisis it had invoked. The test oath was to be 
taken by all officers of the State save members of the Legis- 
lature. By the militia act the Governor was authorized to 
call out and organize corps of volunteers to be formed from 
the body of the militia. Other acts for public security were 
passed at this session of the Legislature. 

Under the authority of all these ordinances and laws an 

armed force consisting of about twenty thousand men was 

assumed to be prepared for action.^ Orders 

The armament . ^ '■ 

in South caro- wcrc issucd by General Hamilton, the com- 
'"^' mander, for the disposition of troops and muni- 

tions, and the State of South Carolina bore the appearance 
of a vast encampment. In the border States certain zealous 
friends of the nullification movement formed themselves 
into armed companies for the purpose of going to South 
Carolina's aid in the event of war. 

The administration at Washington was never more vigi- 
lant than it was then at any period in the country's history. 
Vigilance of At the head of affairs was a veteran of many 
the President, ^^rs, who always became cool at the moment of 
actual peril, and whose resources for such an occasion were 
almost infinite. Weeks before the meeting of the conven- 
tion in South Carolina " confidential" instructions were 
issued from the Treasury Department to the Collector of 
Customs at Charleston.^ It was enjoined upon him to dis- 
play " energy and vigilance," and he was reminded of the 
" delicacy and importance of the crisis." He was authorized 
to employ such revenue cutters as were in his district, and 
also such boats and inspectors as he thought were necessary. 
Indeed, the Government sent to him at once an additional 
cutter. The District Attorney of the United States for the 

^ I have found some difficulty in ascertaining the extent of South Caro- 
lina's military preparation. Loose newspaper statement makes the array 
as above, but it is not certain that so large a number ever had arms in 
hand. On the 1st of April, 1833, there was a grand closing parade at 
Charleston. The Mercury says thirteen hundred volunteers were present, 
of whom only five hundred were uniformed. 

* Eegister of Debates, Twenty-second Congress, Appendix. This refer- 
ence holds for the subjoined military and naval orders in the text above. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 239 

district of South Carolina was ordered to co-operate with 
the collector in measures for the execution of the laws. 
Nor, at this early period in the conflict, did President Jack- 
son stop at civic preparation. A military man, who before 
that had asserted the rights, or supposed rights, of the 
United States with arms in his hands, where a civilian would 
have used the more peaceful process of the courts or nego- 
tiation, he saw the advantage of speedy move- 
ment. Whilst Governor Ilayne was waiting for Stion^mikes 
the Convention and the Legislature to clothe him military prepa- 

. . ^ ration. 

With the power to organize and arm the militia, 
the President, belie\dng himself vested with all power under 
the Constitution and laws to protect the interests of the 
United States in South Carolina, took steps three weeks be- 
fore the Ordinance of Nullification to use force 

,T,r>,i ^'j r\ ^ November 6. 

at least tor the purpose oi resistance. Orders 
were issued on November 6 and 7 to the commandant at 
Fortress Monroe to send two companies of artillery to Fort 
Moultrie, in Charleston harbor. Other troops 
with pieces of artillery were dispatched thither 
a month later.^ But the most significant action was the 
sending to the scene of trouble the commander of the East- 
ern Military Department, Major General Winfield Scott. 
He was directed to repair immediately to 
Charleston and examine everything connected General scott 
with the fortifications. But while he was given ^htriestcra 
authority to strengthen the forts and reinforce 
the garrisons, he was to take no step except in what related 
to the immediate defence and security of the posts without 
the order and concurrence of the Collector of the Port and 
the District Attorney. Naval orders were issued on the 12th 
of December, 1832, to the commanders of two vessels — the 
" Experiment" and the " Natchez," — to sail as soon as prac- 
ticable for Charleston, and Commodore Jesse D. Elliott was 
assigned to the command of the station. The orders to the 



^ In all there were ten companies of these troops, of which three were 
left after the troubles were composed. Charleston Courier, April 12. 



240 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

commanders of vessels were : " Your acts are to be confined 

entirely to the defensive." The military commandant in the 

harbor. Brevet Mai or Heileman, was instructed 

October 29. ' ^ , %.^ , •, . ., , . t 

as early as October 29 to be vigilant, in order to 
prevent surprise. The President was a Southerner, and well 
knew the impetuosity of Southern character. But there 
was no danger until after the necessary constitutional forms 
had been observed, whatever threats may have been made 
by irresponsible parties, or reported to the President as hav- 
ing been uttered. In order to preserve the continuity of 
this part of the narrative, let us anticipate what followed in 
the Congress. General Scott made his head-quarters, for 
reasons of a strategic nature, at Savannah instead of Charles- 
ton. From the former city he could watch the movements 
at Augusta and on the Savannah, and be prepared to meet 
the exigency which would arise upon an invasion of South 
Carolina from Georgia. Indeed, learning that an attempt 
was to be made to seize the United States arsenal at Augusta, 
he strengthened the hands of the commandant. Colonel 
Twiggs, and secured that important point. But while the 
administration at first approved of Savannah as " the proper 
place," upon General Scott's statement, for the head-quarters, 
he was ordered on the 24th of January, and again on the 
26th, to go to Charleston before the end of the month. He 
there took strong measures for meeting and overcoming the 
military preparations of the South Carolinians.^ 

The President answered the proceedings in South Caro- 
lina by a proclamation, issued on the lOtli of December.^ It 

was a remarkable document, combining all the 
ProciTmaUon vigor and courage of " Old Hickory" and the 
of President legal subtlcty and Federal party principles 

of Edward Li\dngston and Louis McLane.^ It 
preached the doctrine of the absolute supremacy of the 
Constitution and the indissolubility of the Union as strongly 

^ The grouping of these events anticipates other parts of the narrative. 

" State Papers, Register of Debates ; Niks, pp. 260-264. 

' Of the two, McLane only had been a member of the Federal party. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 241 

as Webster ever asserted it or Story argued it, except that it 
seemed to admit that the Constitution was in some respects 
a compact between the States, and not entirely a government 
set up by one act of one people. " We are," it said, " one 
people in the choice of President and Vice-President. Rep- 
resentatives, when chosen, are the representatives of the 
United States." The deduction was thus expressed : " The 
Constitution of the United States then forms a government, 
not a league ; and whether it be formed by compact between 
the States or in any other manner its character is the same. 
Secession destroys the unity of a nation." The proclama- 
tion taught, indeed, that secession might be morally justified 
by the extremity of oppression, like any other revolutionary 
act ; but it was insisted that to call it a constitutional right 
was to confound the meaning of terms. The advocates of 
it were either self-deceived grossly or they sought to deceive 
others. The unity of the people was inferred from acts of 
the united colonies. " In paternal language," and with 
" paternal feeling," the appeal is made to " Fellow-citizens 
of my native State ;"^ and he admonishes them also, "as 
the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the 
penalty of its laws," for " the laws of the United States 
must be executed;" he had " no discretionary power on the 
subject," — ^liis duty was " emphatically pronounced in the 
Constitution." He asserted that there could be no peacable 
resistance. " Disunion," he declared, " disunion by armed 
force is treason." N^ear the close of this long proclamation 
the President appeals in fervid terms to " Fellow-citizens of 
the United States." " The Great Ruler of Nations" is in- 
voked in conclusion. The tremendous document was signed 
by the President, Andrew Jackson, and by the Secretary of 
State, Edward Livingston. "Who was its real author or 
authors does not matter. In one sense Jackson was its sole 
author. He took the responsibility. His spirit broods over 



^ Jackson was born in what is now Union County, North Carolina, but 
he always said that he was a South Carolinian. For proof of his North 
Carolina origin, see Parton's " Life of Jackson," vol. i. p. 52 et seq. 

16 



242 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

tlie whole production, and no doubt tlie story is true that 
some of its most notable phrases were invented by him in 
the rough draft submitted to his secretary.^ But the major 
part of the reasoning was Livingston's. The style was 
largely his. The principles were those of the leading mem- 
bers of the administration. 

The excitement increased. Bitter assaults on the Presi- 
dent appeared in the nullification press, and he was defied 
in South Carolina by the majority.^ But the Union party 
was not overawed or inactive. In a meeting held at Green- 
ville they threatened " drawn swords and fijxed bayonets." ^ 
At the elections by the Legislature of Governor and United 
States Senator their members cast blank ballots. To these 
positions the foremost men of the State — Hayne and Cal- 
boun — were chosen. The new Governor took the oath of 
office in compliance with the Ordinance. The retiring Gov- 
ernor issued a farewell address, in which he employed the 
following language : "A large majority of the people would 
rather have every house on the fair surface of our territory 
razed to the ground and every blade of grass burnt than 
surrender to the despotism and injustice of that system of 
government against which we have unalterably taken our 
stand." The address of Governor Hayne was in a more 
conciliatory vein, especially towards those who had opposed 
the nullification movement. It was eloquent. There was 
much in it about " Carolina," but it closed with a fervent 
prayer for " our whole country."* 

* Mies, December 22, p. 266 ; also Parton's " Life," vol. iii., chapter on 
subject. But Hunt, in his "Life of Livingston," p. 371, asserts the exclu- 
Bive authorship for his subject. 

'' The Mercury spoke of the proclamation as "the edict of a dictator." 
"He can't intimidate the Whigs of South Carolina," it said, reviving a 
patriotic name. In the House of Representatives Preston enquired : 
" Are we Russian serfs or slaves of a divan?" The House laughed at the 
phrases, "his children," "like a father." Jackson was denounced as a 
tyrant by some of the speakers in the Legislature. 

' One of the younger Union leaders was the afterwards conspicuous 
B. F. Perry. 

* Mies' s Register, December 22, pp. 267, 278. Twenty-six blanks were cast 
against Hayne in the election ; one hundred and twenty in his favor. 
Ko votes except blanks were cast against Calhoun, 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 243 

The Union Convention in South Carohna met in ad- 
journed session on the 10th of Decemher, Vice-President 
Middleton in the chair, in the absence of Presi- 
dent Taylor. The Ordinance of the State Con- tSS"""^?^ Se 
vention and the acts of the Congress complained ^!'"o° conven- 
of were referred to a committee, of whom ex- 
Governor Manning was chairman, and Johnson, Poinsett, 
and Pettigru were members.^ Their remonstrance and pro- 
test claimed that the people had been entrapped in the 
election for members of the convention. It assailed the 
nullifiers on other points with great energy, not to say 
bitterness.^ 

The Ordinance of IN^ullification was sent to the Legisla- 
tures of the Southern States. The remarks of Governor 
Floyd, of Virginia, in communicating the in- 
strument to the House of Delegates, were favor- ^jgfore'^ '° the 
able to it. In North Carolina and Virginia it southern Leg- 

^ islatures. 

was referred promptly to a committee for con- 
sideration.^ About this time the Pennsylvania House of 
Representatives passed almost unanimously resolutions dis- 
approving both nullification and secession as without the 
warrant of the Constitution. The same resolutions advo- 
cated the continuance of protective duties in pursuance of 
the Governor's recommendations in his message.* The 
events of this memorable winter are so closely connected, 
and so crowd upon the attention, it is almost impossible, 
and, perhaps, unnecessary, to arrange them in strict sequence. 
The Georgia Legislature discountenanced the Qg^rgia-s plan 
proposition of the anti-tariif convention in that of a southern 

^ . .,iiT ^oiij^ Convention. 

State, suggesting the holdmg ot a State conven- 
tion, and recommended, with outline of a plan, to the 
States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ala- 
bama, Tennessee, and Mississippi, a Southern convention, 
nothing to be done on the subject until five States should 



1 Mr. James L. Pettigru, of Huguenot descent. A meeting of French- 
born and descendants of French-born citizens had been held some time 
previous, in opposition to nullification. National Intelligencer, October 12. 

2 Niles, p. 291. « Ibid., pp. 2G6, 275. * Ibid., p. 273. 



244 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

agree.^ Representation in this convention was to be based 
on the number each State had of Senators and Representa- 
tives in the Congress. Their recommendations were to be 
submitted to a State convention of the people in every 
State represented, for final ratification or rejection. The 
,,. . . .^. Yirffinia resolutions criticised both the action 

Virginia criti- o 

cises both the of the President and that of the people of 
South ^''^caro- South Carolina. The South Carolinians were 
^^^^- asked to suspend the execution of their Ordi- 

nance to the end of the first session of Congress. The dele- 
gation in the Congress was instructed to vote for a cur- 
tailment of the tariff to a revenue basis. The Virginia 
Legislature also sent commissioners to South Carolina, and 
suggested that a general convention should be called if the 
protective system was not abandoned before the expiration 
of the next session of Congress.^ 

In the Senate of the United States, on the 11th of Jan- 
uary, Miller presented the resolutions passed by the Legis- 
1833 In the l^turc of South CaroHua. These resolutions 
Senate of the declared that the power to issue a proclamation, 
Resolutions of vcstcd by the Constitution and laws in the 
the South caro- President of the United States, did not author- 

nna Legisla- ' 

ture. ize him in that mode to interfere whenever he 

anuary . iQJgi^t think fit in the affairs of the States, or 
use it to make exposition of the Constitution, with the 
sanction of force, superseding action by the other departs 
ments of the government. They denounced as unconstitu- 
tional the late attempt of the President to order State 
authorities to repeal their legislation, which was character- 
ized as manifesting a disposition to arrogate and exercise a 
power utterly subversive of liberty. The opinions of the 
President were said to be erroneous and dangerous, leading 
not only to the establishment of a consolidated government, 
but to the concentration of all powers in the Chief Execu- 
tive. The right was asserted of each State of the Union, 
whenever it might deem such course necessary for the pres- 

^ Mies, p. 280. * Richmond Enquirer. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 245 

ervation of liberty or vital interests, to secede peaceably 
from the Union, and the constitutional power of coercion 
by the general government was therefore denied. As a 
corollary from these doctrines, the Legislature of South 
Carolina asserted that the primary and paramount allegiance 
of the native and adopted citizens of that State was due to 
the State. The President's proclamation was spoken of as 
" rather an appeal to the loyalty of subjects than to the 
patriotism of citizens," and " as a blending of official and 
individual character heretofore unknown in our State papers 
and revolting to our conceptions of political propriety, . . . 
the solemn and official form of the instrument" alone en- 
titling it to the consideration of the Legislature. The reso- 
lutions affected to see in the proclamation "undisguised 
personal hostility." The doctrines and purposes of the in- 
strument were said to be " inconsistent with the just idea of 
a limited government and subversive of the rights of the 
States and the liberties of the people." The conclusion of 
this declaration of defiance was in these words : " That 
while this Legislature has witnessed with sorrow such a re- 
laxation of the spirit of our institutions that a President of 
the United States dares venture upon this high-handed 
measure, it regards with indignation the menaces which are 
directed against it and the concentration of a standing 
army on our borders ; that the State will repel force by 
force, and relying on the blessings of God, will maintain its 
liberty at all hazards."^ The resolves were read, laid on 
the table, and ordered to be printed.^ On the , 

' ^ _ January 14. 

14th of January, Calhoun offered a resolution caihouu's reso- 
wliich requested the President to lay before the 
Senate a copy of his proclamation of the 10th of December, 
and authenticated copies of the Ordinance of the people of 
South Carolina with the accompanying documents, and also 
of the proclamation of the Governor of South Carolina of 
the 20th of December, which was transmitted with the 



Register of Debates, p. 80. 
Ibid., p. 81. 



246 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

request tliat he should lay them before Congress.^ On the 
following day it was stated by Grundy on authority from 
the President that the documents would be ready the second 
day thereafter, or perhaps earlier, and that the reason why 
they had not been sooner communicated was that an authen- 
tic copy of the act of the Assembly could not be procured, 
janua 16 Accordingly, on the 16th of January, a message 
The President's was reccived from the Executive, transmitting 
comphanc^^^^ the documcuts asked for. Grundy moved their 
defends South reference to the Judiciary Committee, with an 

Carolina by • • /-^ n 

attaciiing the order to print. At this point Calhoun arose, 
President. ^^^^ obser\ang that what he should say would 

be entirely out of order under parliamentary rule, threw 
himself upon the indulgence of the Senate. He said that 
feeling " no disposition to notice many of the errors which 
the message contained," he yet emphatically denied the sub- 
stantial statement that the movements made by the State of 
South Carolina were of a character hostile to the Union. 
There was not a shadow of foundation, he proceeded, for 
such a statement. The President's grounds were not less 
extraordinary than the inference itself. Before South Caro- 
lina had taken any position of a conflicting character there 
had been a concentration of United States troops on two 
points, obviously for the purpose of controlling the move- 
ments of the State. One of these concentrations was at 
Augusta, and the other at Charleston. Previous to this cir- 
cumstance South Carolina had looked to nothing beyond a 
civil process, and had intended merely to give effect to her 
opposition in the form of a suit at law. Calhoun declared 
that it was only when a military force was displayed on her 
border and in her limits, and when the menace was thrown 
out against the lives of her citizens and of their wives and 
children, that they found themselves driven to an attitude of 
resistance.^ There was a great change in the opinion of the 



^ Register of Debates, p. 99. Calhoun's resolution was offered at the 
close of the day. 
* Ibid., p. 101. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 247 

Executive within the last twelve months on the subject of the 
Supreme Court being the arbiter to decide constitutional 
points of difference between States and the general govern- 
ment. He alluded to Georgia's resistance. In answer to 
another part of the message, he would say that the reason 
South Carolina had not asked for a convention of the States 
in order to amend the Constitution, although she had wished 
over and over again to obtain such a convention, was that 
she had uniformly found a fixed majority against her in 
both Houses. Leaving the message and entering the more 
congenial field of fundamental principles and political his- 
tory, he averred that the principle of decay was to be found 
in our institutions. To him the only cause of wonder was 
that our Union had continued so long. Its duration was 
mainly attributable to the election of Mr. Jefferson. The 
time, he declared, had come when we were called upon to 
decide between a confederation and a consolidated govern- 
ment. He described briefly the process of consolidation, 
and could see no distinction between a consolidated govern- 
ment and one which assumed the right of judging of the 
propriety of interposing military power to coerce a State. 
He asserted that we made no such government, and that 
South Carolina sanctioned no such government. She had 
entered the confederacy with the understanding that a State 
in the last resort had a right to judge of the expediency of 
resistance to oppression, or secession from the Union.^ In 
the course of this speech Mr. Calhoun was, ac- ^ ,^ 

^ ^ _ ■ ' Calhoun con- 

cording to his own confession, carried along at fesses that he 
times by the warmth of his feelings.^ At least 
twice he ascribed to the President's action a character of de- 
liberate malice, which he immediately retracted. The more 
notable instance was the passage in which he asserted that 
for attempting to exercise the right or understanding on 

^ The chapters of this work on the Constitution show how far Mr. Cal- 
houn was, in his fervid advocacy of nullification, from correctly represent- 
ing the governing opinion in his State at the time of the formation and 
adoption of the Federal Constitution. 

* Register of Debates, p. 103. 



248 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

which South Carohna had entered the Union the people of 
that State were, in his own words, "threatened to have 
our throats cut and those of our wives and children. No, I 
go too far. I did not intend to use language so strong. 
The Chief Magistrate has not yet recommended so desperate 
a remedy." In the colloquy which followed between Cal- 
houn and Forsyth, the latter disputed the justice of the 
parallel the former had sought to establish between South 
Carolina's present conduct and that of Georgia in the 
Cherokee affair. Forsyth said further that he had heard 
^v^th great pleasure from that high source the declaration of 
South Carolina and the gentleman's enthusiastic love for the 
Union. It must be confessed, he observed, that the State in 
its course had placed the object of their love in extreme 
danger. Continuing, the Senator from Georgia remarked : 
*' The Chief Magistrate pledges himself not to resort to any 
but defensive force; and the Senator from South Carolina 
tells us that South Carolina has no desire to use force unless 
assailed. The hope might be indulged that all these pledges 
would be redeemed: if they were, force could not be 
used." ^ 

The President's message, recommending additional legis- 
lation providing for the collection of duties on imports, was 
referred to the Judiciary Committee, which re- 

January 21. . 

Collection or ported a bill on Tuesday, the 21st of January.^ 
On the next day debate occurred on the question 
of fixing a day for its consideration. The Senators who 
sympathized with the nullifiers opposed Wilkins's proposi- 
tion to open the discussion on the following Thursday.^ 
The Administration Senators favored the early date. 
Grundy mentioned as a reason for early action the fact that the 
1st of February was the time set by South Carolina for her 
Ordinance to take effect. That time was near at hand, and 
the other House was to act after action had been taken in 
the Senate.* Mangum, of North Carolina, a member of the 

' Register of Debates, p. 104. * Ibid., p. 150. 

* He was instructed by the Judiciary Committee. 

* Register of Debates, p. 174. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 249 

Judiciary Committee, remarking that this was vastly the 
most important question which could be brought forward at 
that session, — a question so important that, in hia opinion, it 
would " shake the ancient character of our institutions to 
their very foundations," — moved its postponement until the 
Monday following one week.^ In the discussion that took 
place the whole matter at issue was opened. Grundy had 
fears as to the issue of the proceedings in South Carolina. 
Miller defended her action, and said that the force proposed 
was not against people acting unlawfully, but a sovereign 
State performing rightful acts.^ As to the oath for office- 
holders under the State, he denied that it was a test oath. 
<' The State simply required all the agents in her pay to take 
an oath to support her laws." It was not essentially differ- 
ent, he said, from the oath taken by every Senator and the 
officers of the government.^ Regretting that there should 
have been an exhibition of feeling on a mere proposition to 
fix a day for the consideration of a bill. Clay remarked that 
Thursday next was too short a time, and proposed the fol- 
lowing Monday.* Smith supported him, but Poindexter 
preferred Mangum's motion, and Bibb also favored a more 
distant day. Among Poindexter 's objections to the bill 
were some provisions of the second section which he pointed 
out and which he declared transcended the jurisdiction of 
the United States courts, and were to that extent a repeal of 
the Constitution.^ Defending the Committee, Frelinghuysen 
said that the bill only enabled the Executive to discharge 
the sacred obligations which the Constitution imposed upon 
him when it ordained that he should " take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed." ^ The bill met the South Caro- 
lina Ordinance and laws with the counteracting agency of 
the Federal courts. Brown and King concurred with Clay 
as to the time. Calhoun resented "Wilkins's remark that 
South Carolina contemplated violent resistance to the laws 
of the United States. But the latter pointed to the various 

1 Register of Debates, p. 175. " Ibid., p. 176. » Ibid., p. 177. 

* Ibid., p. 178. " Ibid., p. 181. « Ibid., p. 182. 



250 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

acts of the State, and averred tliat there was no indication 
of a disposition in South Carohna to retrace her steps. He 
upheld the right of the general government to " adopt every 
measure of precaution to prevent those awful consequences 
which all must foresee ^s necessarily resulting from the posi- 
tion which South Carolina had thought proper to assume." ^ 
In the light of Clay's attitude towards the nulliiiers a fore- 
glimpse of events is perhaps to he had in the subjoined re- 
mark of Miller : " Let Congress modify or repeal the tariff 
by twelve o'clock on the night of the 3d of March, and I 
vnW under^^^:'ite the State of South Carolina that not an act 
of violence ■svill take place, not a drop of blood will be shed." ^ 

Clay's motion was viewed by two opposing interests as 
conciliatory. The friends of nullification and their apolo- 
ciay's motion gists wcre jilcascd at delay. Perhaps they had 
agreed to. rj^^^i inkling of Something favorable to come. The 

party and protectionist enemies of Jackson were willing to 
rebuke him if it could be done without committing them- 
selves to the doctrine of nullification. Hence, after the re- 
jection of the longest proposed day, Mangum's motion. 
Clay's proposition was agreed to, that of "Wilkins having 
been withdrawn.' 

Ever ready to resort to first principles, Calhoun, on the 
22d of January, offered three resolutions touching the origin 
januar 22 ^^^^ character of the government and tiie limitar 
Calhoun's three tious upou its powcrs. He Said that he had 

resolutions on, , ., .. , 

the character drawn tlicm With great care, with a scrupulous 
°^ nt^and^The regard to the truth of every assertion they con- 
1 imitations taiucd. Hc also declared that he had been 
ers. His speech equally scrupulous in making no deductions but 
on the same. such as Were Sustained by the clearest and most 
demonstrative reasoning. He seemed to be sure that no one 



^ Register of Debates, p. 184. ^ Ibid., p. 185. 

' Ibid., p. 187. The vote for the longest day was nine ayes to thirty- 
seven noes. The ayes were Bibb, of Kentucky ; Black, of Mississippi ; 
Calhoun, of South Carolina ; Mangum, of North Carolina ; Miller, of 
South Carolina ; Moore, of Alabama ; Poindexter, of Mississippi ; Rives 
and Tyler, of Virginia. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 251 

who valued his character for candor could contradict, or 
jury refuse to return a verdict in their favor.^ He con- 
tended that the people of the United States were not united 
under the principles of a social compact as so many indi- 
viduals, as was stated l)y the President. The great question 
at issue was, Where is the paramount power ? 
His answer was given in the propositions which pojrHn ""the 
he argued, that the people of the States as sepa- r^opie of the 

, . . I, 11,-... \ states as sepa- 

rate communities formed the Constitution ; the rate communi- 

Union was a compact between States, and the sl^tutiou'' Tile 
Constitution a bond between States.^ To call ^°^^ between 

T r^ • . 1 . , States. 

the Constitution the social compact was the 
greatest possible abuse of language. " The sovereignty, 
then," to quote him literally, " is in the people of the several 
States united in this Federal Union. It is not only in them, 
but in them unimpaired; not a particle resides in the 
American people collectively. The bill," according to Mr, 
Calhoun, " sweeps away the questions of the tarifl' or its 
unconstitutionality, of nullification or whether the Supreme 
Court can decide questions in controversy between the 
States and the general government.^ The State as a com- 
munity can break no law. It can as a sovereign body be 
subject to none. K it pledges its faith or delegates its 
powers it may break the one and resume the other, but the 
remedy in such cases is not hostile enactments, — not law by 
which individual citizens are made responsible, — ^but open 
force, war itself, unless there be some remedial and peaceful 
provision in the compact." That question was not before 
the Senate, but if it should be presented, he was ready to 
prove that this government had no right to resort to force. 
The illustrious fi^amers of the Constitution were too wise 
and patriotic to admit of the introduction of force.* All 
contests for power between the Federal Government and the 
States might be decided in a Convention of States, under 

1 Register of Debates, p. 187. ^ Ibid., p. 188. =• Ibid., p. 189. 

* As has been shown in the first chapter on the Constitution, the proposi- 
tion to employ force against States came from the State rights men of the 
small States, and was rejected along with their system. 



252 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the provisions of the Constitution, which were the wise safe- 
guards against mihtary despotism. In extending his re- 
marks and alluding to the various points at 
decided Inl issue, lie observed that he could not but per- 
couventioa of ccive in the bill itself evidence that there was on 
the part of its authors an internal feeling of the 
force of these arguments.' They had not made it directly 
applicable to the case of South Carolina, nor to the case of 
a State opposing on her own sovereignty what she believed 
to be an unconstitutional act of the Federal Government. 
He asked : " If there be guilt. South Carolina alone is guilty : 
. . . Why make it the general and permanent law of the 
land ?" 2 

Calhoun's resolutions were substantially : 1. That the 
people of the several States, united as parties to a constitu- 
tional compact, having acceded as a separate sovereign com- 
munity, each binding itself by its own particular ratification, 
_ , . , and that the union of which the said compact 

Delegation and ... . 

reservation of is the bond IS the union between the States rati- 
powers. fying the same; 2. That there was a delegation 

of certain definite powers to be exercised jointly, a residuary 
mass of powers reserved to the State governments, the 
assumption of which reserved powers by the general gov- 
ernment is unauthorized and of no efifect, and that the same 
government is not made the final judge of the powers dele- 
gated to it, but that, as in all other cases of compact among 
sovereign parties without any common judge, each has an 
equal right to judge for itself as well of the infraction as of 
the mode and measui'e of redress. The third resolution 
denies the opposite doctrine to that just stated.^ 

A difierent set of resolves was offered on the 

Grundy's reso- 
lutions. The following day by Grundy. They were longer 

iS^postr ^^ than but not so argumentative as Calhoun's. 
expressly Thcv beo;an with the general delegation and 

granted. . „ • i ^ • • -, 

reservation ot powers m the Constitution, and 
proceeded to imposts, the power to lay which was declared 

1 Kegister of Debates, p. 190. * Ibid. » Ibid., p. 191. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S3S. 253 

to be one of the powers expressly granted by the Constitu- 
tion to the general government and prohibited to the 
States. The tariffs of 1824 and 1828 were regarded as ex- 
ercises of the constitutional power possessed by the Con- 
gress, and attempts to obstruct or prevent the execution of 
the several acts of Congress imposing duties were affirmed 
to be unwarranted by the Constitution and to be dangerous 
to the political institutions of the country. At Webster's 
suggestion, the whole subject was postponed until Monday.^ 
Like the closing years of the last century, this w^as an era 
of constitutional exposition by resolution. The extreme 
and moderate State rights parties had spoken. „ , 

o 1 1 Clayton pre- 

It w^as now time for the advocates of another seuts a third 
school to express its views. Three daj^s later and Federal 
than the introduction of Calhoun's, Clayton, p°'^^'"^- 
declaring that Grundy's resolutions had yielded the whole 
doctrine of nullification in the implied admission that an 
unconstitutional law of the Congress might be nullified, 
offered some resolutions of his own.^ They declared in 
effect that the power to annul the revenue acts of Congress 
imposing duties on imports, or any other law, when assumed 
by a single State, was incompatible with the existence of the 
Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitu- 
tion, and unauthorized by its spirit ; that the people of the 
United States were for the purposes enumerated in the Con- 
stitution one people and a single nation ; that the Constitu- 
tion did not secure all the rights of independent sovereignty 
to any State ; that the Supreme Court w^as the proper tri- 
bunal in the last resort for the decision of all cases in law 
and equity arising under the Constitution and laws ; that 
resistance to the laws founded on the inherent and inalien- 
able rights of all men to resist oppression was in its nature 
revolutionary and extra-constitutional. The concluding 
resolution was a declaration to support the President with 

^ Register of Debates, p. 193. Mangum, one of the Calhoun party, had 
first proposed the postponement of the consideration of the resolutions 
offered by his friend, but had given way for Grundy to introduce his. 

» Ibid., p. 231. 



254 A HISTORY OF TSE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

all the constitutional power necessary. These resolutions 
were framed with the greatest ingenuity to express more 
than they seemed on the first glance to contain. 

The debate on the resolutions was opened by Mr. Mangum 
on Monday, the 28th of January. It was partly upon the 
janua 28 Forcc or Collection bill, and was participated in 
The debate on \,j "Webstcr, Calhoun, Grundy, Poindexter, and 
and the Force othcrs. Calhoun dcsircd Gruudy to withdraw 
^*"- his resolutions. "Webster called upon Calhoun 

to prove his charge that the bill would create a dictator and 
establish a military despotism. He also disputed the asser- 
tion that the resolutions offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina contained indubitable facts, and said that he 
should be happy to meet the gentleman on that head. 
Calhoun replied gravely to Webster's use of Hudibras on 
"so solemn an occasion." He denied the statement of 
"Webster that with the exception of the first section (a pru- 
dent reservation) all of the provisions of the bill had at 
some time received the sanction of South Carolina. When 
Calhoun closed with the remark that he would merely add 
that he felt as deep a conviction in his own mind of the 
truth of the propositions contained in his resolutions as of 
the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts was then 
sitting in his chair, Webster replied promptly : " I do not 
doubt it." ^ 

The resolutions were then laid aside, and the House pro- 
ceeded to consider formally the Force bill. The first sec- 
Provisionsof tiou of this mcasurc provided " that whenever 
the bill. ^y reason of unlawful obstructions, combina- 

tions or assemblages of persons, or unlawful threats or 
menaces against ofiicers of the United States, it shall become 
impracticable in the judgment of the President to execute 
the revenue laws," etc., he might direct that the custom 
house should be " established and kept in any secure place 
within some port or harbor of such district, either upon 
land or on board any vessel." It was made unlawful to 

^ Eegister of Debates, p. 244, 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1SS3. 255 

take the vessel or cargo from the custody of the proper ofS- 
eer of the customs unless by proclamation of a United 
States court ; and the President was authorized in defence 
of such ofBcer and floating custom house to call out any 
part of the land or naval force or militia as might be neces- 
sary for the protection of such officer and custom house and 
to suppress riots of persons in any manner opposing the 
execution of the revenue laws, or otherwise in violation or 
in assisting or abetting in violations of the same. The 
second section extended jurisdiction of circuit courts of the 
United States " to all cases in law or equity arising under 
the revenue laws of the United States for which other pro- 
visions are [were] not already made by law." Property 
taken or detained by any officer under authority of any law 
of the United States was to be irreprievable, and any person 
dispossessing, rescuing, or attempting to rescue or dispossess, 
was to be deemed guilty of this misdemeanor and liable to 
the punishment provided in the act of April 30, 1790, for 
obstruction or resistance of officers.^ Various details were 
given in succeeding sections. The fifth authorized the 
issuance of a proclamation by the President requiring the 
dispersion of " all such military and other force" as might 
be in too great numbers " to be overcome by the ordinary 
course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in 
the marshal by existing laws." If such force did not dis- 
band, and the- obstruction continued after the proclamation, 
the President was authorized to use the means provided in 
the act of February 28, 1795, entitled, "An act to provide 
for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the 
Union," etc. ; and also in the act of March 3, 1807, en- 
titled, " An act authorizing the employment of the land and 
naval forces of the United States in cases of insurrection." 
Where jails or other houses were not allowed to be used it 
was made lawful to use other convenient places, or to make 
such other provisions as the marshal, under direction of the 



^ The twenty-second section. The punishment there imposed is a fine 
of three hundred dollars and imprisonment for twelve months. 



256 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

United States judge, might deem expedient or necessary for 
the purpose. In the hist of the seven sections of the act, 
either of the justices of the United States Supreme Court 
or a judge of the District Court of the United States, in ad- 
dition to the authority already conferred by law, was em- 
powered to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where 
a prisoner was confined for an act or acts done or omitted 
to be done in pursuance of a law of the United States, or 
of an order, process, or decree of any judge or court 
thereof. Refusal to obey such an order was made a misde- 
meanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand 
dollars and imprisonment not exceeding six months, or 
either, according to the nature and aggravation of the 
case. 

Mangum's motion to postpone the bill was lost by a vote 

of fifteen to thirty.^ "Willdns, who spoke in support of the 

measure, was interrupted by questions proposed 

Colloquies. i. •/ j. i i 

by Poindexter, Miller, and Calhoun.^ The lat- 
ter said, on the part of South Carolina : " It is not intended 
to use any force except against force. We shall not stop 
the proceedings of the United States courts, but maintain 
the authority of our own judiciary." But Willdns asked : 
" How can the Ordinance refer to any laws of the United 
States when they are excluded from any operation within 
the limits of the State ?" He read a circular relating to the 
selection of military routes and depots of supply and the 
question of arms for the force called out by the State of 
South Carolina. No name was signed to it, and it was to 
be kept out of the newspapers.^ The colloquy between 
Wilkins and Miller illustrates the extreme difiiculty there 
was of a settlement on the terms proposed by South Caro- 
lina. The latter, in one of his replies to remarks by "Wil- 
ldns, said : " K Congress passed a bill altering the tariff 
acts of 1828 and 1832, he was of the opinion that such act 
would set aside the Ordinance, which was specific in its ap- 
plication to those tariff acts." Wilkins replied, sarcasti- 



1 Register of Debates, p. 248. " Ibid., p. 249. * Ibid., p. 251. 



NULLTFICATIOX AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1SS3. 257 

cally : " Wliat prospect, then, was there of an abandonment 
by South Carolina of her present position ? She only 
offered two modes : one to abandon the protecting system, 
which would be fatal to the industries of the Northern 
States; the other to call a convention of States." It was 
not probable, he said, that two-thirds of Congress or three- 
fourths of the States would agree to the call, and if they 
should it was not at all probable that they would alter tJie 
Constitution in the respects which would please South Caro- 
lina.^ "Wilkins spoke ably and at great length, not con- 
cluding his speech until the next day. Cal- ^^^^ ^^,^ ,. 
houn, in one of his interruptions, sought to tincuon be- 

, ,.,.,. , , .,., twecii military 

make a distinction between mihtary prepara- preparation 
tion, which he admitted to be going on in «■"<* ^'"'"ay- 
South Carolina, and array, which he denied.^ To this ob- 
served Wilkins : " If we fold our arms and exhibit a per- 
fect indifference whether the laws of the Union are obeyed 
or not, all will be quiet!" Further: " The moment we fail 
to counteract the nullification proceedings of South Caro- 
lina the Union is dissolved; for in tliis government of laws 
union is obedience and obedience is union.^ The moment 

South Carolina " Calhoun (interrupting) : " Who relies 

upon force in this controversy? I have insisted upon it 
that South Carolina relied altogether on civil process, and 
that if the general government resorts to force then only 
will South Carolina rely upon force. If force be intro- 
duced by either party, upon that party will fall the responsi- 
bility." Wilkins (resuming) : " The general government 
will not appeal in the first instance to force. It will ajtpeal 
to the patriotism of South Carolina, — of that magnanimity 
of which she boasts so much." Calhoun retorted, amid 
cries of "Order! Order!" from one or two members: "I 
am sorry that South Carolina cannot appeal to the sense of 



1 Register of Debates, p. 252. ^ Ibid., p. 253. 

' Ibid. This is an extreme statement, unwarranted by anytliing in the 
political history of the country, and refuted by events already recited in 
the course of this history. 

17 



258 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

justice of the general government." Wilkins proceeded: 
" The government would appeal to that political sense 
which exacts ohedience to the laws of the country as the 
first duty of the citizen. It will appeal to the moral force 
in the community. If that appeal be in vain, it will appeal 
to the judiciary. If the mild arm of the judiciary be not 
sufficient to execute the laws, it udll call out the civil force 
to sustain the laws. If that be insufficient, God save and 
protect us from the last resort." Again: "If force be 
brought in to the aid of the law, who, I ask of gentlemen, 
is responsible for it to the people of the United States ?"' 
He admitted the right of resistance by force, if Congress 
intended to overrun and subdue the State of South Carolina 
and overturn the liberties of its people. 

The extensive debate which followed can only be very 
briefly indicated. Grundy spoke on the 30th of January, 
and was succeeded by Bibb, who did not con- 
clude his remarks until February 1.^ Freling- 
huysen, having spoken for three days, was followed by 
Brown on the 4th and Holmes on the 5tli of 
e ruaxy , . j^gj^p^^g^j-yS Tyler made perhaps the ablest of 

his Congressional arguments on this occasion.* Bibb's con- 
tention was that, althouo-h South Carolina had 

Bibb. -,..111 

been impatient and had gone to extremes, jus- 
tice must be done to five other States ; and that there was 
no constit«tional power to coerce a State. Abuses or mal- 
administration of delegated powers must be corrected 
through the instrumentality of elections. But the usurpa- 
tion of powers not delegated was an entirely different thing. 
The federal government could not be the sole judge of the 
limits of its powers : there was nothing in the compact jus- 
tifying such a conclusion. From the nature of the ques- 
tions over which it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court 



^ Register of Debates, p. 254, for above colloquy. 
' Ibid., pp. 263, 2G4-312. 
» Ibid., pp. 312, 333, 348. 
* Ibid., pp. 3G0-377. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S3S. 259 

could not be final arbiter. The power to coerce States had 
been proposed in the federal convention and rejected. Four 
considerations were to be kept constantly in view : 1. The 
perpetuity of the Union ; 2. The necessity for a fair and 
energetic administration of the government as ordained 
and established ; 3. The safety of a minority of the States 
against a combination of the majority; 4. Security against 
usurpation and degeneracy into practical tyranny. Fre- 
linghuysen argued that the Union was not a 

o -\ 1 ..i,,iTi T Frelinghuysen. 

mere lederal compact; that the delegates to the 
Federal Convention were chosen to form a new Constitution ; 
that their commission was not from sovereign States, but 
from the people ; and that when they had completed their 
work and were ready to return to the people the very words 
of the instrument which they had formed and which was 
ratified by the people "were so selected as to put down 
forever the delusive idea of State interference and State 
sovereignty." He continually confused the ideas of sover- 
eignty by the people of the States and the alleged sover- 
eignty of the State governments. He professed to have 
understood Calhoun as claiming that sovereignty resided in 
the State governments as distinguished from the people of 
the States. When the South Carolina Senator interpolated 
the correction, " In the people of the States," Frelinghuysen 
affected to construe this as an admission that Calhoun had 
surrendered his ground and left nothing to contend about. 
He further misrepresented the theory of the other side by 
the statement that they claimed that all allegiance was due 
to the State. Their contention was that allegiance in the 
last resort against infractions of the fundamental law wa» 
due to the State ; that is, to the people of the several States 
acting in their sovereign capacity, in conventions. Over- 
looking the fact that in the Olmstead case the contest was 
merely between the judiciary of the federal government 
and a State of the Union, he claimed that this was the very 
issue which South Carolina sought to try. This Senator 
relied upon the previous enforcement legislation of the 



260 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Congress as precedents.^ In reviewing tlie Olnistead case 
Brown, of l^ortli Carolina, showed that, although Penn- 
sylvania resisted, the federal government did 

Brown. '' -mi /^ 

not resort to coercion. The Congress and the 
President trusted to the force of our institutions, \vithout 
other remedy, and those institutions triumphed. That ex- 
ample was commended to Pennsylvania. Let her show the 
same forbearance towards the people of South Carolina as 
the Union practised towards her. Repudiating nullification, 
he also repudiated what he called "the high-toned doc- 
trine of the Federal party." In his opinion, nullifica- 
tion was attributable to that doctrine. W~hen Jefierson 
saw that the Union was in danger from the embargo 
measure, that act was repealed. The whole of the Southern 
States, and not South Carolina alone, opposed the protective 
policy. And he believed that a majority of the American 
people desired a modification of the tarifi". He did not 
mean to imply that the United States government should 
yield to every rash requirement of a State. But the pri- 
mary interests and sensibilities of States and sections should 
be regarded. The tendency of Tyler's argu- 
^ ^^' ment was to show by the history of the country 
that the government from the beginning was federative in 
its basis and operation. Many of the provisions of the 
present Constitution were taken almost iotidem verbis from 
the articles of confederation. The government was created 
by the States, was amended by the States, was preserved by 
the States, and might be destroyed, he contended, by the 
.States ; and yet we were told that it was not a government 
of the States. He said : " The great American idea was 
and is that sovereignty resides alone with the people, and 
that public servants are but their agents." Protection by 
the United States government, even on the ocean, he held, 
was due to State agency and means. The inference that 
the federal government might punish a State for treason 



^ None of these acts had been directed against the acts of the State con- 
vention, and were, .therefore, not pertinent. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1SS3. 261 

was wholly fallacious. The power to punish treason in in- 
dividuals was a concession by the States necessary for the 
preservation of each, and produced no transfer of alle- 
giance. If no such provision had been put in the Constitu- 
tion, there would have existed no power to punish those 
who committed the offence. Tyler defended the course of 
Virginia in the matter of the Virginia resolutions of 1809 
on the proposition from Pennsylvania. This, he declared, 
was an extraordinary proposition, since it was confined by 
its terms to the sole case of a difference of opinion between 
the State and federal courts, and omitted any provision for 
collisions between the other departments of the govern- 
ment. The residue of his defence was feeble, since it de- 
pended on the statement that because the resolution was 
unanimously adopted it was adopted hastily. Like all of the 
other pronounced State rights Senators, he disavowed the 
policy of South Carolina, but would not join in denuncia- 
tion or deny that she had cause of complaint. The nullifi- 
cation Senators, as they were called, generally expressed 
confidence in the President, but stated their opposition, 
some of them in strong terms, to conferring upon him what 
they regarded as extravagant powers. Tyler thought that 
under the operations of the Force bill the Chief Executive 
might consider the members of the South Carolina Legisla- 
ture aiders and abettors in the resistance to the federal gov- 
ernment and order their arrest. 

On the 7th of February, Poindexter offered a resolution 
requesting the President to lay before the Senate copies of 
his military orders directed to the commanding 
officer of the forces in and near Charleston, par- poindoxter. 
iticularly such orders, if any had been given, as The President's 

( -^ . . military orders. 

referred to resistance to the constituted authori- 
ties of the State of South Carolina within the chartered 
limits of that State.^ After a brief discussion, the resolu- 
tion was laid over until the following day, on the motion of 
Grundy. A remarkable argument on the Collection bill 

^ Register of Debates, \}. 377. 



262 A HISTORY GF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

and cognate subjects was delivered on this day by Cla}i;on, 
of Delaware. It was probably tlie most incisive and com- 
prehensive which had yet been contributed to 
the debate on the side of federal as opposed to 
State powers in the last resort.^ Clayton began by reading 
some resolutions of the Delaware Legislature to which he 
gave his approbation. These resolutions declared in sub- 
stance that the Constitution was not a compact, but a form 
of government emanating from and established by the peo- 
The Federal P^^ ^^ ^^® United States ; that that government, 
Government tliough ouc of limited powcrs, was supreme 
supreme within withiu its Sphere of actiou, and that the people 
Its sphere. owcd to it allco-iance which could not be with- 

drawn by State nullification or State secession; that the 
Supreme Court was the only tribunal for the settlement in 
the last resort of controversies arising under that Constitu- 
tion and the laws of Congress ; and that " resistance and 
revolution," declared to be "extra-constitutional," were the 
remedy in " cases of gross and intolerable oppression." This 
Party debate developed the party relations of the 

relations. participants. Clayton accused Wilkins of sus- 
taining the principles of the bill for the sake of the man 
who was to execute its provisions. In reply to the strict 
constructionists, he said that the Virginia and Kentucky 
resolutions had been laid on the shelf for thirty years, that 
the latter were entitled to no respect, and that nullification 
presented even greater evils in perspective than secession. 
He, like Frelinghuysen, charged unfairly the rigid State 
rights advocates with drawing distinctions between a State 
and the people of a State. But he obtained some legiti- 
mate advantage over his opponents in discussing the ques- 
tion of the term " sovereignty" as used in the circular of 
the Federal Convention, issued September 17, 1787. He 
said that the whole government was the agent, not especi- 
ally of the people of South Carolina, but of the people of 
the States. The South Carolina address which he exam- 

^ Register of Debates, pp. 378-403. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 263 

ined was faulty in phraseology on the subject of sover- 
eignty. Clayton contended that sovereignty was a unit, indi- 
visible, but not in the sense insisted upon bv o 

' ^ . . Sovereignty a 

the South Carolina people. His unit was the unit, and this 
people of the United States. Our government orthj*^ united 
was both federal and national. Leao-ues and con- ^^^^^^- 
solidated republics, in his view, were intolerable evils. The 
government of the United States originated in a compact 
between the people ; but he appeared also to think that the 
State governments were likewise parties. He pjgtincti n b 
distinguished between sovereign power and ulti- tween sover- 
mate sovereignty : the former was distributed ultimate sover- 
between the State and general governments, and ^^^nty. 
between the different departments of these governments; 
the latter rested in the people of the United States. Li a 
colloquy with Calhoun, the latter seemed to make an irre- 
sistible point when he said that the Federal Convention had 
refused to give the National Legislature power to negative 
State laws interfering with the harmony of the Union. 
" True," replied Claj'ton, " it was not adopted 

T T 1 ., • ,- 1 The judicial 

clearly because it was a new proposition to check, ciay- 
confer judicial power on the National Leei-isla- ^^ ^^^ ^^^' 

'' ^ . ° houn. 

ture after the Convention had resolved to con- 
fer all the power necessary for checking State legislar 
tion on the national judiciary." To this Calhoun 
responded that what he had denied was that a propo- 
sition to give jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all con- 
troversies between the United States and an individual 
State had not been adopted by the Convention. Clayton 
retorted that live days after the report was made an amend- 
ment including the substance in nearly the same language 
was adopted — on the 27th of August — and that that amend- 
ment stood incorporated in the Constitution. Interrupting, 
Calhoun asked : " But will the gentleman contend that a 
State may be sued since the adoption of the eleventh 
amendment ?" Clayton answered : " The eleventh amend- 
ment prevented any suit against a State by citizens of 
another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State; 



264 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

but does not in any way impair the riglit of the United 
States to sue a State. It was never designed to impair that 
right." A colloquy occurred later in the day between 
Clayton and Tyler. " Can the gentleman from Virginia still 
deny that he is a citizen of the United States ?" interrogated 
the former. " I deny," replied Tyler, " that I am a citizen 
of the government of the United States." Clayton merely 
said in rejoinder that he could not " bandy useless meta- 
physical distinctions with any member." Clayton himself 
set up a fine distinction. He argued that the principle of 
the bill was to operate on the citizens of the State, not on the 
State itself. He contended that the Congress had power to 
delegate its authority on the President. Throughout his 
argument he was more subtle than conclusive as to first 
principles; but his keen eye saw the weaknesses of the op- 
position not only, but also the defects of the bill. Quicker 
even than Webster, he detected and pointed out that the 
second and third sections of the bill contained " unnecessary 
and improper restrictions on the just powers of the State 
courts," and declared that they would prove oppressive in 
practice on the suitors in those courts. Webster injected 
the remark : " None but ofiicers of the United States can 
take advantage of those sections." But Cla}i;on demon- 
strated that the words, " any officer or other person," proved 
the contrary, and he secured a modification in accordance 
^^^th his suggestion. 

The interest was so great and the time for action so short 
that the Senate several times refused to postpone the ques- 
other tion or to adjourn in order to oblige Senators 

arguments. y^^Y^Q wcrc too iudisposcd to procced with their 
speeches.^ Opposing the Force bill, the following Senators 
spoke at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, some of 
them at length : Mangum, Tyler, Bibb, Brown, Calhoun, 
Miller, the first and last of whom made formal and elaborate 
addresses. The speakers in favor of the measure were 
Grundy, Webster, and Dallas.^ A portion of the debate 



^ Register of Debates, p. 404. * Ibid., pp. 404-459. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 265 

was upon Poindexter's resolution, mentioned above. Grundy 
wished to have the usual discretion left in the President. 
Poindexter denied that it luid been usual to make exception 
in calls for information from the President in regard to 
army and navy orders. Grundy " supposed" that one of 
the most respectable citizens of South Carolina had ^iven 



information upon which orders had been issued. Would 
the gentleman have the name of this citizen and all the cir- 
cumstances disclosed? "Yes, the whole of them," replied 
Poindexter. "Would not such disclosure lead to the im- 
mediate shedding of blood ?" enquired the Tennessee Sena- 
tor, President Jackson's friend and the administration 
leader on this occasion. In an undertone the Senator from 
Mississippi expressed his disregard of the consequences. 
Grundy declared that that was what he wished to avoid.* 
Poindexter said further that he desired to know if any offi- 
cer stationed at a particular post had permitted his feelings 
to be so strongly enlisted as to interfere with his duty.^ 
Calhoun remarked that there was not one word in the reso- 
lution which ought to provoke opposition.^ Webster en- 
deavored to affect the relations between the secession 
Senators and the administration. " Will you please to 
remember, sir, that this is a measure founded in executive 
recommendation. The committee have not adopted a 
feature that was not in the message."* Tyler and Bibb re- 
plied, the former that he had not enquired from what quar- 
ter the bill came, the latter throwing back the imputation 
with indignation that he had been the subservient tool of 
any man, and, besides, denying that the bill was in accord- 
ance with the message.^ Bibb put Webster on the defen- 
sive by asking if there was any link or communication be- 
tween the bill and the message other than what appeared. 
Webster averred that there was nothing in the first and 
fifth sections (which had been indicated by the opposition 
as new matter) that the message did not recommend. The 



» Register of Debates, p. 407. ' Ibid. » Ibid., p. 408. 

* Ibid., p. 410. * Ibid., p. 411. 



266 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

President had liad the " daring effrontery" to ask for these 

powers, no matter how liigh the otfence.^ Wehster exposed 

the division in the Democratic or Jacksonian 

Division in the . • z-v t 

Democratic party. Dallas said : " This Ordinance has vio- 
party. latcd aliTiost every contract or compact involved 

in that [the Federal] Constitution." He asserted that the 
South Carolinians had " nullified that important provision 
which secured the right of trial by an impartial 
jury." Nullifying the revenue act, South Caro- 
lina had also annulled the judicial act. IMTot only so, he 
continued, but the paramount character of our national 
allegiance was denied and overthrown.^ He argued that 
the naturalization laws showed that allegiance was due to 
the general and not to the State government. He charged 
despotism against what he called the " combination" of a 
few men in South Carolina to control the affairs of the 
State, and asked why the Ordinance had not been submitted 
to the people for ratification.^ He said that secession was 
manly, unmasked, open and above-board, but nullification 
was secession in disguise, with a constitutional mask, par- 
tial in its pretensions, and covert in its operation. Dallas 
averred that the Constitution was its own best expounder, 
but he found proofs of the nationality of our government in 
" four striking periods of our annals," — the General Con- 
gress of 1774, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles 
of Confederation, and the present Constitution. Of the 
Congress of 1774 he declared: " It was certainly an assem- 
bly more national or popular in its apparent origin and 
influence than federative."^ He quoted the remark of 
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, so often used in previous de- 
bates : " The separate independence and individual sover- 
eignty of the several States were never thought of by the 
enlightened band of patriots who framed the Declaration." 
He placed " the authoritative point of investigation," how- 

^ Register of Debates, p. 413. Bibb had said that he could not imagine 
that any President would have the daring effrontery to ask Congress to 
give him such powers. 

^ Ibid., p. 418 et seq. * Ibid., p. 421. * Ibid., p. 424. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1SS3. 267 

ever, in the manner of the ratification of the Constitution.' 
In reference to " critical niceties," he remarked the consoh- 
dating aspect of the expression in the Constitution, " the 
supreme law of the land," and insisted that it would be in- 
convenient, incongruous, and preposterous to reserve a right 
to resume at pleasure what was agreed to be surrendered 
and had been finally surrendered. Dallas did not, as others 
on the same side had done, contend that the Supreme Court 
was a whole or final arbiter of constitutional questions 
which arose between the general government and the State 
governments. " There is another," he said, " in the way 
of nullification or secession; and I answer that the only 
judge in the last resort, whether the Constitution shall be 
at an end or not, whether the government shall be arrested 
in its operations or not, is the very sovereignty by which it 
was created, and from which it received its first impulse; 
that sovereignty is the people of the United States." This 
argument was treated by the nullifying party and their 
friends w^th profound respect.^ On the 9th of February, 
Grundy, in reply to Calhoun, stated that there was nothing 
in his own previous remarks to support the inference that 
the President had responded to communications from South 
Carolina, or that his proclamation was known in that State 
before its appearance. Party excitement was high enough 
there without adding fuel to the flame.^ On a subsequent 
day Poindexter showed that at the period of the Burr con- 
spiracy a similar call for information, originating with Ran- 
dolph, had been made upon the President. It went even 
further : it was to ask what had been done and what was 
intended to be done in relation to the supposed conspiracy.* 
Grundy withdrew his proposed amendment, modifying the 
call so as to ask merely for copies of orders, and the Poin- 
dexter resolution was then agreed to.* 

The Force bill was postponed on Saturday, the 9th, until 
Monday, the 11th of February." On the latter day Clay 

1 Eegister of Debates, p. 426. " Ibid., p. 430. ' Ibid., p. 431. 

* Ibid., p. 432. * Ibid., p. 433. « Ibid., pp. 441-443. 



268 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

gave notice of his intention on the morrow to introduce a 
bill to modify the various acts imposing duties on imports. 
Miller proved by quotations that Frelinghuy- 
e ruary9-i . ^^^^^^ claim, that the Resolutions of '98 and '99 
were never used in a Presidential campaign after that be- 
tween Jefferson and Adams, was groundless. But he ad- 
mitted that Virginia slept at her post in 1809. In the 
course of his argument to sustain nullification, 
quotes a Massa- Miller was drivcu to defend the conduct of 
chusetts prece- Governor Strons:, of Massachusetts, in refusino; 

dent. "' _ ' ° 

to obey the act of Congress which gave the 
President the power to call on the Governors of States for 
the militia when the President thought that the contingen- 
cies had occurred. The South Carolina Senator said that 
no fault was to be found of Strong, as he submitted the 
matter to the State judges, and they decided that he had the 
right to refuse if he deemed that the contingency to support 
such a call had not happened.* He asserted that the posi- 
tion of South Carolina on the subject of secession had been 
misunderstood by some and misrepresented by others. " It 
is not true," he declared, " that any attempt on the part of 
the general government to enforce the revenue law is made 
the condition upon which the secession shall take place. 
The exception is a very broad one, — any attempt except by 
the ' civil institutions' of the country." ^ Speaking for him- 
self only. Miller did not think that as a political principle 
the federal government could recognize the right of seces- 
sion, simply because no government, unless it was so agreed 
upon in its constitution, could recognize that which might 
lead to its own dissolution.^ He appeared to hold that the 
practical assertion of the right to secede would come only 
in the last resort, when it would be immaterial to enquire 
whether it could be done peaceably or otherwise. He con- 
sidered that a State had the same right to secede that a 
citizen had to emigrate. Every citizen might emigrate, and 
thus destroy the State. The federal government in the ab- 

» Register of Debates, p. 446. ' Ibid., p. 449. * Ibid. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 269 

stract could not admit of secession ; nor could a State in the 
abstract admit of the right of emigration, unless covenanted 
for, as in Connecticut. There was no way to prevent either 
except by the exercise of such arbitrary power as would 
shock the moral sense of a people accustomed to live in a 
free government. In reply to Dallas, he contended that the 
Constitution of the United States had no bearing on the 
right of trial by jury.^ In all essential particulars this ex- 
tended speech of Mr. Miller was short of the requirements 
of the occasion. But there were some averments which, 
coming from a Senator representing a State in conflict with 
the United States, are illustrative of her position. Thus, in 
referring to the canvass for the State convention, he ob- 
served: "I hazard nothing in saying, if the President had 
published his opinion of the duty he should feel under to 
enforce the decrees of the Supreme Court last summer, in- 
stead of permitting an inference to be deduced that he 
would not, no convention or nullification would be in force 
in South Carolina at this time : a different issue would have 
been tendered." He insisted that the State had followed 
the theoretical and practical opinion of the President up to 
the issuing of his proclamation, and that in every stage of 
the controversy the United States had done the first wrong.^ 
Wilkins's amendments were adopted, the principal one of 
which was the striking out of the first section the words 
" unlawful threats and menaces." A new sec- „,.„ . , 

Wilkins s 

tion was also added, which restricted the opera- amendments 
tions of the law to the end of the next session ^ °p ^ • 
of the Congress. Forsyth's motion to strike out the third 
section provoked opposition from Webster and Wilkins, the 
former of whom deemed that to be the most important 
feature of the whole measure. Wilkins also regarded it as 
indispensable.'' 



' Register of Debates, p. 450. The argument in brief was that the Con- 
stitution of the United States only provided for the maintenance of the 
right by existing laws, and that the State Constitution could be altered. 

« Ibid., p. 454. ' Ibid., p. 461. 



270 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

In presenting his Compromise measure Clay made, per- 
haps, not the ablest but certainly one of the most eiiective 
Clay's compro- of his Congrcssional speeches. He discussed 
mise measure. ^|^g whole suliject with great candor. He 
showed that South Carolina was wrong, but that other 
States had also been wrong on similar questions of conflict 
between the States and the general government, although 
not so rash and intemperate. The tariff, how- 

The tariS the i i i T i r» ^ > d ^ • 

first object of cvcr, was declared to be the first object of his 
solicitude. " If it should even be preserved at 
this session," he said, " it must fall at the next session." 
He would not pretend to elucidate why this change had 
been rendered necessary, but accepted the fact. He de- 
clared that the repeal of the Edict of i^antes was nothing 
in comparison with the mischief which would be produced 
by the overthrow of the interests protected by the tariff.^ 
The evil of a vacillating policy was pointed out, and, he 
seemed to think, obviated by such a basis as the one found 
in his modification. He read and commented 

Explanation. , . . . n i i -ti t • 

senatim upon the provisions oi the bill, speaking 
at great length on the second section, relating to low-priced 
woollens. He explained that the third section provided a 
rule by which the duties were to be reduced to the revenue 
standard. Congress being in the mean time authorized to 
adopt any other rule which the exigencies of the country 
might require. The same section also required that the 
duties should be paid in ready money, — a provision that 
had been long demanded for their security by manufac- 
turers. Mr. Clay desired evidently not to offend any inter- " 
est which he could draw to the support of his measure. He 
said that he did not wish the present bill to be considered.- 
as united in fate with the measure providing for the distribu- 
tion of public lands and the subject of internal improve- 
ments. But he endeavored to show that if the latter 
passed they would work together. It was not sure that 
there would be any surplus under the operations of the bill.^ 

^ Register of Debates, p. 462. Ibid., p. 465. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF ISSS. 271 

He attacked the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury 
as to future expenditures as unreliable and calculated art- 
fully, without imputing to him or to any one improper mo- 
tives, to get rid of the tariff'. Mr. Clay then considered the 
objections which he thought would be raised. He regretted 
that the greater part of the country would not suffer the 
principle of raising revenue from the protected and not 
from the unprotected articles. But he thought that the time 
would come when it would be adopted as the permanent 
policy of the country.^ He contended, however, that the 
bill would not interfere with the power of pro- ^j^^ manufac- 
tection. The most that could be urged was that turers would 
the manufacturers relinquished some advantage, ^q^q advau- 
In four or five sentences he stated the situation t*^<^- 
as it appeared to him : " K we can see our way clearly for 
nine years to come, we can safely leave to posterity to pro- 
vide for the rest. If the tariff:' be overthrown, as may be 
its fate next session, the country will be plunged into ex- 
treme distress and agitation. I want harmony. I wish to 
see the restoration of those ties which have carried us trium- 
phantly through two wars. I delight not in ..Let us have 
this perpetual turmoil. Let us have peace, and peace." 
become once more united as a band of brothers." ^ He ob- 
served again : " This confederacy is an excellent contrivance, 
but it must be managed with delicacy and skill. The infinite 
variety of local interests and prejudices should be made to 
yield to the Union." He answered all of the objections of 
the friends of protection, adroitly considered the time re- 
quired, made the admission cautiously but vnth a certain 
purpose that after eight and a half years the protective prin- 
ciple would be in some measure relinquished, argued subtly 
that "what we lose no foreign hand gains," and finally 
urged that "the distribution was founded on that great 
principle of compromise and concession which lies at the 
bottom of our institutions, which gave birth to the Con- 
stitution itself, and which has continued to regulate us in 



Register of Debates, p. 4G6. ' Ibid., p. 467. 



272 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

our onward marcli and conducted the nation to glory and 
renown," ^ 

Mr. Clay now approached the most delicate part of his 
subject. He said that the aspect of things had greatly 
chano-ed since the commencement of the session. When he 
came to take his seat he had supposed that a member of the 
Union had assumed an attitude of defiance and hostility to 
the authority of the general government. He had in conse- 
quence felt a disposition to hurl defiance back and to im- 
press upon her the necessity for a performance of her duties 
as a member of the Union. But since his arrival in Wash- 
„ ,, „ ,. ino;ton he had found that South Carolina did not 

South Carolina & 

merely making contemplate force. She disclaimed the allegar 
an expenmen . ^.^^ ^^^ asscrtcd that she was merely making 
an experiment. By a course of State legislation and by a 
change in her fundamental laws she was endeavoring by her 
civil tribunals to prevent the general government from car- 
rying the laws of the United States into operation within 
her limits. Her appeal was not to the sword, but to the 
law. He ventured, he said, to predict that the State to 
which he had referred must ultimately fail in her "attempt. 
"While he refrained from saying anything to the disparage- 
ment of that State, he thought that she had been greatly 
in error, and had, to use the language of one of her 
own writers, " made up an issue unworthy of her." He 
further affirmed that from one end of the continent to the 
the other nullification had been put down by 

Nullification ,, . •■•iif c it •• 

had been put the irrcsistibie force of public opmion more 
down by public effectuallv than by a thousand armies. He 

opinion. '' *^ . . 

would express two opinions. The first was that 
it was not possible for the ingenuity of man to devise a sys- 
tem of State legislation to defeat the execution of the laws 
of the United States which could not be countervailed by 
federal legislation.^ The other was, and here he appeared to 
be criticising the President, that it was not possible for any 
State, provided the general government was administered 

1 Register of Debates, p. 469. ' Ibid., p. 470. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 273 

with prudence and propriety, so to shape its laws as to throw 
upon the general government the responsibility of first resort- 
ing to the employment of force. South Carolina taking this 
view of the subject was doing nothing more, except that she 
was doing it more rashly, than some other States had done; 
and he cited Ohio in the bank taxation cases and Virginia in 
the lottery cases, but he was not sure that he was correct in 
the history which he gave of the latter. South Carolina, he 
continued, had postponed the operation of her Ordinance, and 
would without doubt again postpone. It was utterly impos- 
sible, he declared, that she should have ever desired for a mo- 
ment to become an independent State. Mr. Clay concluded 
his speech wdth a solemn appeal for a deliberate consideration 
of a measure intended to restore harmony to the Union.^ 

Forsyth opposed the granting of leave to introduce the 
bill, but said that its avowed object would meet with uni- 
versal approbation. But in " the project now Forsyth-s oppo- 
offered he could not see the elements of success." ^^**°°" 
The opportunity presented a few months before should have 
been seized. Only fourteen days of the session remained, 
and it would be better to await the action of the House of 
Representatives on the bill before that body. He objected, 
too, that the bill was a violation of the Constitution, because 
the Senate had no power to raise revenue. He asserted 
that the tariif was "at its last gasp," and that Debateonciay'a 
its partisans, no longer able to sustain a conflict, request, 
sought to make the best bargain they could.^ Smith, an- 
other Senator of the administration party, complained that 
the bill contained nothing but protection from beginning to 
end. Nevertheless, he thought that the reduction on some 
articles was too great.^ Poindexter returned his hearty 
thanks to the Senator from Kentucky for the bill, and hoped 
that leave would be granted to introduce it. He protested 
against what he called the inconsistency, which would bring 
out the whole of the country to carry the tariff laws into 
effect and then refuse to receive any proposition to modify 

I Eegister of Debates, p. 472. ^ Ibid., p. 473. ' Ibid., p. 474. 

18 



274 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the tariff. Althougli lie had not examined the bill, Sprague, 
of Maine, expressed the hope that leave would be granted. 
He sharply arraigned Forsyth for his sarcasm at the mover 
of a tranquillizing measure. He also observed that the gen- 
tleman would find that the victory over protection was not 
yet won.^ Seeing that he had made a mistake, the Senator 
from Georgia disclaimed having been sarcastic ; he declared, 
on the contrary, that he had praised the Senator from Ken- 
tucky. After further remarks by Clay, Calhoun approved 
the objects for which the bill was introduced. He who loved 
the Union must desire to see that agitating question brought 
to a termination. He said he believed that to the unhappy 
divisions which had kept the Northern and Southern States 
apart " the present entirely degraded condition of the coun- 
try was solely attributable." ^ He favored the general princi- 
ples of the bill, especially that of fixing aA valorem duties, 
except in a few instances, but there were some objections to 
the measure. He seemed to regard these as minor points in 
the settlement which would present no difiiculty when gen- 
tlemen met " in that spirit of mutual compromise which he 
doubted not would be brought into their deliberations with- 
out at all yielding the constitutional question as to the right 
of protection." This remark was greeted with tumultuous 
applause in the galleries.^ Dickerson would vote against 
leave on the ground that the bill could not originate in the 
Senate. "While Webster could not concur in some of the 
provisions, he would vote for leave. It could hardly be re- 
jected on the ground taken by the Senator from ISTew Jersey. 
If he understood the plan, it was to surrender the power of 
discrimination or a stipulation not to use that power in the 
laying of duties on imports after the eight or nine years had 
expired. For one he was not ready to enter into the treaty, 
and he did not take the despairing view of the gentleman 
from Kentuclvy on the subject of the tariff.* Clay refused 
to adopt Forsyth's suggestion to strike out the clause that 



^ Register of Debates, p. 475. ' Ibid., p. 477. 

» Ibid., p. 478. * Ibid., p. 479. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 275 

raised the duty. The debate proceeded between Buckner, 
Kane, Holines, Chalmers, Foot, King, Forsyth, and Clay, who 
concluded the day's discussion.^ Dickerson having objected 
to Forsyth's motion to read Clay's bill a second time with a 
view to commitment, the bill was ordered to be printed.^ 

The consideration of the Force or Revenue Collection 
bill was resumed. Some of the extreme State ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^y 
rights party refused to vote on Forsyth's motion ^sain. 
to strike out the objectionable third section. Calhoun was 
one of four of them, however, who supported it. It received 
no other vote except Moore's. Calhoun himself moved 
that the bill as amended should be printed, which was 
ordered. Pending the first of these motions, the nullifying 
party moved twdce to adjourn. 

On the 13th of February, Webster introduced five reso- 
lutions on the subject of the tariff. They de- 

** . \ February 13. 

clared (1) that as soon as it could be ascertained Webster's tariff 
that the act of 1832 produced a surplus, pro- 
vision ought to be made for the reduction of duties, having 
just regard to the various interests and opinions of different 
parts of the country, but having regard for (2) an increase 
in the amount of duty on some articles. The second reso- 
lution provided for the reduction to be on a specific basis 
with respect to revenue and protected articles both, and the 
rate of wages. The third resolution further enforced the 
principle of discrimination by a declaration that the opposite 
plan was " unwise and injudicious" and " hitherto equally 
unknown in the history of this government and in the prac- 
tice of all enlightened nations." His fourth resolution 
asserted that the power of commercial regulation or of 
laying duties on imports having been taken from the State 
governments and vested in the Congress of the United States, 
Congress could not surrender or abandon such power com- 

» Register of Debates, pp. 479-481. 

* This bill contained six sections. Register of Debates, vol. ix. part 1, 
p. 481. 



276 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

patibly with its constitutional duty. The last resolve was 
aimed directly at Clay's movement. It proclaimed " that no 
law ought to he passed on the subject of imports containing 
any stipulation, express or implied, or giving any pledge or 
assurance, direct or indirect, which shall [should] tend to 
restrain Congress from the full exercise, at all times here- 
after, of all its constitutional powers, in giving reasonable 
protection to American industry, countervailing the policy 
of foreign nations and maintaining the substantial indepen- 
dence of the United States." ^ 

The debate on Clay's bill having been resumed, Dickerson 

moved that it should be referred to the Committee on Manu- 

f3,ctures, and Grundy that it be referred to a 

Debate on ' , "^ 

Clay's bill re- sclcct Committee chosen from different sections 
sumed. ^^ ^-^q TJnion.^ The latter expressed tlie hope 

that Mr. Clay would be put at the head of the committee. 
Clay and Calhoun also expressed a preference for a select 
committee, and the proposition was further endorsed by 
Bell, King, Moore, and Holmes, Senators holding variant 
opinions on the tariff question. Buckner favored Dicker- 
son's motion, and Benton, stating his objections to the bill, 
said he would not send it to any committee. On the motion 
of Dallas to lay the bill upon the table the yeas were thirteen 
and the nays twenty-six. The affirmative vote was largely 
ITorthern Democratic, the negative majority having been 
made up of the friends of South Carolina and the ITational 
Republicans. This was the first step in an alliance which 
was to last during the remainder of General Jackson's ad- 
ministration. By twelve to twenty-six the proposition to 
refer the bill to the Committee on Manufactures was then 
defeated. It was referred to the select committee.^ 

During an ensuing debate on the Force bill, Moore, of 
Alabama, said that neither the God of nature nor the Con- 
stitution had made a distinction between the labor of the 
slave and the labor of the free, between the bondsman and his 

^ Register of Debates, p. 484. * Ibid. 

« Ibid., p. 486. Journal, p. 175. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S3S. 277 

master, and the South would not permit the government to 
do it hy protecting the free lahor of the North at the expense 
of the shave labor of the South.^ Motions to postpone the 
question were made at different times hy the enemies of the 
measure. Webster's resolutions, on motion of Chambers, 
were tabled on the 14th of February.^ 

The argument of Eives on the Force bill was one of the 
most able and moderate of the series.^ It was based chieily 
on Mr. Madison's views, or rather on the later j^j^^^ ^^ ^-^^ 
presentation of them, on the subject of State Force bni. 
sovereignty. The consequence of nullification in South 
Carolina would be to abolish the uniformity of imposts and 
the equality of fiscal and commercial regulations. Other- 
wise, he contended, the whole commerce of the country 
would be drawn to the free ports of South Carolina. But a 
view of higher importance was that the example would 
inflict a mortal wound on the Constitution. The govern- 
ment would be thenceforward virtually dissolved. Agreeing 
with Calhoun's first position that the Constitution was a 
compact between the States as independent and ^^^ constitu- 
separate communities, he differed from the great tion a compact, 

^ , ^ T . . ° . but State eov- 

South Carolinian m respect to other proposi- erdgntynotab- 
tions. State sovereignty was not absolute. As ^°^^'^°- 
to defined objects there was a sovereignty in three-fourths 
of the States which were necessary to change the Constitu- 
tion. Mr. Rives said : " In the body of the community the 
sovereignty of each system resides ; that of the federal sys- 
tem, in the community called the United States, that of the 
State systems, in the communities called the States." Jeffer- 
son admitted nationality in the general government for cer- 
tain purposes; also Washington in his Farewell Address, 
and Madison in his letter to the North American Review. 
The honorable Senator from South Carolina himself, in 
his letter to Governor Hamilton, published last summer, 
says : " The general government is the joint organ of all 
the States confederated into one general community." He 



1 Register of Debates, p. 491. » Ibid., p. 492. » Ibid., pp. 492-517. 



278 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

qiioted also the report and exposition adopted by the South 
Carohna Legislature in 1828, as follows: "Our system 
itself consists of two distinct and independent sovereign- 
ties." In the second sentence as quoted there was no incon- 
sistency with the attitude of South Carolina in 1833. It 
was declared that the general powers conferred on the 
general government were subject to its sole and exclusive 
control, and the States could not, without violating the Con- 
stitution, interpose their authority to check or in any man- 
ner counteract its movements so long as they were confined 
to its proper sphere ; so also, it was further declared, the 
peculiar and local powers reserved to the States were sub- 
ject to their exclusive control, nor could the general govern- 
ment interfere with them without on its part also violating 
the Constitution. But in a colloquy between 
tween Calhoun Calhouu and Rives the former declared that 
and Rives. yarious Senators had misapprehended his views. 
He had contended that if a State should resume the powers 
granted to the general government such resumption would 
be only a breach of contract for which the State as a com- 
munity, and not its citizens individually, would be respon- 
sible- To this Rives replied immediately that if it be ad- 
mitted that an attempt on the part of a State to resume the 
powers granted by it and the other States to the general 
government would be a breach of compact, then it neces- 
sarily followed that no State had a right under the Consti- 
tution to make such resumption. In respect to an unconsti- 
tutional act of a State, he asserted that it could not in any 
manner disturb the regular action of the government. The 
Constitution was not a mere league or treaty of alliance or 
confederation, but a government to the extent of its granted 
powers. The interposition of a State convention was of no 
more avail to arrest the execution of the laws of the United 
States than that of a State in her ordinary political capacity ; 
which was apparent from the clause in the Constitution 
asserting the supremacy of the Constitution and laws made 
in pursuance thereof. He brushed away as he would have 
brushed a cobweb Tyler's distinction between a citizen of 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 279 

the government of the United States and a citizen of the 
United States : " Who, sir, has ever seen a citizen of the 
government of Virginia ?" He insisted that the relation of 
allegiance was not between citizen and government, but 
was between citizen and sovereign. The allegiance in this 
country was therefore due to the whole body ^^^^ ^^ 
of the community. Strong as he was in all this allegiance is due 
part of his contention, the real weakness of his body onhrcom^ 
position became apparent when he considered '^™^^- 
the security for State rights. He relied in the last resort on 
" the moral interposition of the States" and the admittedly 
extra^constitutional remed}^ — which he declared, however, to 
be " peaceful and complete" — of one-half of the States re- 
fusing to elect Senators.^ He saw nothing in common 
between the Ohio and Virginia cases, but he was not dis- 
posed to moot those questions with the Senator from Ken- 
tucky, with whom he was disposed to co-operate in his 
effort to adjust a most distracting question. Rives did not 
concur in favoring the provisions of the bill for a military 
force " at the present moment." He agreed with a majority 
of those who had spoken that a new adjustment of the 
tariff was acknowledged by all to be necessary. 

Evening sessions were held at which the Force measure 
was considered. The provision for a floating custom-house, 
which Clay had characterized as ludicrous, was retained. 
Several amendments, offered by the friends of South Caro- 
lina, were rejected.^ 

On the 15th and 16th of February Calhoun spoke, using 
the whole of the former and a portion of the latter day.'^ It 
was the speech of a great man, but not the 
great speech of a great man. Indeed, it must 
be said that it was a comparative failure, in form and sub- 
stance, as a constitutional argument. The first part was a 
defence of South Carolina and of himself It was too 



* His single authority is, apparently, C. J. Marshall, in Cohen v. 
Virginia. 
2 Register of Debates, p. 519. ' Ibid., pp. 519-553. 



280 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

apologetic. So far as lie answered arguments he directed 

his efforts towards a reply to the speeches of Clayton and 

Rives. He made a nearly satisfactory vindication 

caihoun'8 ^f himsclf and his State from the charge of being 

speech a com- _ ° '-' 

parative fail- responsible for the protective system. He ex- 
amined the act of 1816 and declared that it was 
a tariff for revenue, but admitted that so far as " it intro- 
duced the obnoxious minimum principle" it was protective. 
But his account of its introduction was the Aveakest possible 
defence of his friends and of himself. How it was over- 
looked at the time, he averred, it was not in his power to 
say; and the only explanation he offered was that it was 
new, and he was then engaged in considering the currency 
question. His speech on that occasion, which he now de- 
fended, barring " some hasty and unguarded expressions," 
was termed " an impromptu." He assigned the same rea- 
sons for the tariff of 1816 that had been given previously 
in the other house by McDuffie and others and in the 
Senate by Hayne. He might well have been believed when 
he declared that " whatever support the State had given the 
bill had originated in the most disinterested motives." He 
also stated that he had opposed the restrictive measures of 
Mr. Madison, and reported from the Committee on Foreign 
Relations a bill to repeal the whole system. South Carolina 
had steadily protested from 1818 to 1828 through the Legis- 
lature against " further encroachments." On the passage of 
the act of 1828 she had fallen back on her reserved powers. 
She had been thoroughly instructed by men of the most com- 
manding talents and acquirements. Throughout the discus- 
sion no address was made to the low and vulgar passions. 
He asserted that General Jackson had proved utterly false 
to their hopes. He attributed the policy pursued by the 
President to " the mischievous influence of a single indi- 
vidual" admitted to the cabinet. He repelled the charge in 
the President's proclamation, a charge which had been often 
made, that he (Calhoun) had been actuated in the part he 
had taken by disappointed ambition. He adduced his own 
conduct as Vice-President at the time of the passage of the 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S3S. 281 

bill of 1828 as a sufficient refutation of the charge of self- 
seeking. As to sovereignty and the nature of our govern- 
ment, he argued that the terms Union, federal, united, all 
imply a combination of sovereignties — a confederation of 
States. But his language here is not as clear as usual, 
for having spoken of a combination of sovereignties, he 
says that these terms were never apphed to an association 
of individuals. Of course he does not refer to the smaller 
association which makes the State, but to the greater which 
makes the Union of States. He asks : " Who ever heard 
of the United States of New York, of Massachusetts, or of 
Virginia ?" "What he means by a combination of sovereign- 
ties is not such a combination as would make a unit, like 
Clayton's people of the United States, for he presently ex- 
plains that sovereignty and power are different expressions 
and that the former resides alone in the individual States. 
He declares expressly that there is no divided sovereignty 
between the States severally and the United States. But a 
sovereign may delegate his powers. To surrender any por- 
tion of sovereignty is to annihilate the whole, Mr. Cal- 
houn affirmed that the whole sovereignty was in the several 
States of the Union, and that the controversy was one be- 
tween power and liberty. He thought that Rives and others 
who had professed the principles of '98 " had degraded them 
by explaining away their meaning and efficacy." The speech 
abounded in historical parallels. It was more a study of 
ideas of government than of government in the concrete. 
His whole theory of absolute and concurring majorities was 
built in the air. But his great earnestness, his broad notion 
of justice, his occasional flashes of an austere and charac- 
teristic eloquence, compel our admiration.' 

^ Calhoun's eloquence was of the rock-ribbed kind. The following are 
specimens from this speech, which I regard as one of his weakest : He 
presents "the impious spectacle of this government, the creature of the 
States, making war against the power to which it owes its existence." 
Or, better: "It was said by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Grund}-] 
to be a measure of peace. Yes, such peace as the wolf gives to the lamb ; 
the kite to the dove : such peace as Russia gives to Poland, or death to 
its victim." Register of Debates, p. 536. 



282 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

"Webster's speech on tlie 16th of February was much 
stronger as an argument for the supremacy of the Union 
, than his speeches in reply to Hayne, but was 

speech of Feb- not SO declamatory.^ Rhetoric was subordinated 
ruary 16. ^^ rcasoning, but both were of the highest order. 

Although he took the floor immediately upon the conclusion 
of Calhoun's argument, he did not reply technically, but 
nevertheless met the leading points of that speech and 
sought in an independent way to establish his own proposi- 
tions. He accepted Calhoun's resolutions and his speech on 
the same and the one just made by the South Carolina 
Senator " as comprising the whole South Carolina doctrine." 
The word "Con- Examining the first two of Calhoun's resolu- 
stitution." tions, he claimed that the word " Constitution" 

threatened his whole doctrine of compact. He said that 
Calhoun introduced a new word, and " degraded the Consti- 
tution into an insignificant, idle epithet, attached to com- 
pact." In his proudest manner he averred: " Sir, I must 
say to the honorable gentleman that in our American polit- 
ical grammar, * Constitution' is a noun substantive ; it im- 
ports a distinct and clear idea of itself; and it is not to lose 
its importance and dignity, it is not to be turned into a poor, 
ambiguous, senseless, unmeaning adjective for the purpose 
of accommodating -any new set of pohtical notions." He 
Accession-se- claimed that Calhoun had used the word " ac- 
cession, ceded" as applied to the action of the States in 
ratifying the Constitution, because accession was the natural 
converse of secession, and it was desired to establish that 
doctrine. He objected to the use of unconstitutional lan- 
guage in explaining or declaring the import of the Constitu- 
tion. But "Webster proceeded to something better than verbal 
criticism. The people had ordained a constitution ; could 
they reject it without revolution? The people had estab- 
lished a form of government; could they overthrow it vdthout 
revolution ? These, he declared, were the true questions. K 
one State might secede because an impost was laid, another 

^ Register of Debates, pp. 553-587. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 283 

might because it was not laid. Secessions might thus go on 
interminably. But these questions presupposed the breakino- 
up of the government. Whilst the Constitution lasted they 
were repressed. " The Constitution," he said, " does not pro- 
vide for events which must be preceded by its secession revo- 
own destruction. Secession, therefore, since it lutionary. 
must bring these consequences with it, is revolutionary. 
And nullification is equally revolutionary. It strikes a 
deadly blow at the vital principle of the whole Union. Is 
it not anarchy as well as revolution ? The alleged right of 
self-decision in a State leads necessarily to force, because dif- 
ferent States will decide differently, and if there be no 
superior power the question at issue can be decided only by 
force." He summed the steps and consequences of nullifi- 
cation. " And now, sir," he proceeded to say, " against all 
these theories and opinions I maintain : 1. That the Consti- 
tution of the United States is not a league, con- gjg i^^^. propo- 
federation, or compact between the people of sitions. 
the several States in their sovereign capacities, but a govern- 
ment proper, founded on the adoption of the people and 
creating direct relations between itself and individuals. 2. 
That no State authority has power to dissolve these rela- 
tions; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution ; and 
that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession 
without revolution. 3. That there is a supreme law, con- 
sisting of the Constitution of the United States, acts of 
Congress passed in furtherance of it, and treaties, and that 
in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in 
law or equity. Congress must judge of and finally interpret 
this supreme law so often as it has occasion to pass acts of 
legislation ; and in cases capable of assuming, and actually 
assuming, the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the 
United States is the final interpreter. 4. That an attempt 
by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, 
or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground 
that, in her opinion such law is unconstitutional, is a direct 
usurpation on the just powers of the general government 
and on the equal rights of other States ; a plain violation of 



284 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary 
in its character and tendency." The first pair of these re- 
solves were negative, the second affirmative ; and in such 
order was his argument throughout. Webster's tendency 
to verbal criticism, and consequently to narrow \dews, was 
as perceptible as Calhoun's to vague generalization in this 
discussion. Webster said that he differed not without diffi- 
dence and regret -u^th Rives, and declared his respect for 
the school to which that gentleman belonged, concurred in 
its results, but must be permitted to hesitate about some 
of the premises of the doctrines. Wliile he did not agree 
The constitu- ^^^^* ^^ strictucss of language the Constitution 
tion not a was a compact at all, he did agree that it 

compact, but /• i i , ±_ 

founded on was loundcd on consent or agreement or on 
compact. compact, if the gentleman preferred that word, 

and meant no more by it than voluntary consent or agree- 
ment. When a people agreed to erect a government and 
actually erected it the thing was done, and the agreement 
was at an end. In the account which he gave of the forma- 
tion of the government he said that there was no such thing 
as sovereignty of government known to this side of the 
Atlantic, in which opinion he appeared to concur with the 
views of John Taylor, of Caroline, in his work, " Construc- 
tion Construed," rather than with the speakers on his own 
side of the debate upon the question under consideration. 
He contended that there was no language in the Constitu- 
tion applicable to a confederation of States. Again he 
found himself in disagreement with some with whose gen- 
eral policy he concurred when he argued that the States 
could not omit to appoint Senators and electors. Webster 
insisted that the first resolution adopted by the Federal Con- 
vention, " That a national government ought to be estab- 
lished," etc., was substantially included in the revised form, 
" Government of the United States," and that the conven- 
tion rejected compact, league, and confederation, and set 
themselves about framing the constitution of a national gov- 
ernment. He averred that they accomplished what they 
undertook, the popular basis having been expressed in the 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 285 

very words of the Constitution, " We, the people of the 
United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution." 
The States were established by the people of the „„, ,^ 

•^ Jr i "We, the jy^o- 

States ; this Constitution by the people of all the pie." 
States. How could, he asked again, how could a State undo 
what a whole people had done ? The whole question turned 
on the right of interpretation of the powers conferred in the 
Constitution. Alluding to Calhoun's doctrine Govemmentb 
of majorities, he said, " Whoever denounces majorities. 
the government of majorities denounces the government of 
his own country and denounces all free governments," And 
he asked, " How far does South Carolina respect the rights 
of minorities ?" He held that while nullification was as dis- 
tinctly revolutionary as secession, it did not seek a revolu- 
tion of so respectable a character as the latter. On the 
rejection of the power to tax manufactures and establish 
public institutions of learning, he observed, " The conven- 
tion supposed it had done enough (at any rate, it had done 
all it intended) when it had given to Congress in general 
terms the power to lay imposts and the power to regulate 
trade. Will gentlemen undertake to deny that [the First] 
Congress did act on the avowed principle of protection ?" 
As if forgetful of his own attitude and that of Massachu- 
setts prior to 1828, especially of his unanswerable speech of 
April, 1824, he boldly extended a challenge in these terms : 
" But, sir, I hold South Carolina to her ancient, her cool, 
her uninfluenced, her deliberate opinions." In his simple 
and beautiful peroration, which was free from the exaggera- 
tion which marked his more famous speech of 1830, Webster 
declared that " among the practical sentiments of this people 
the love of Union was still uppermost." With reference 
obviously to Clay's Compromise bill, he said that he relied 
on no temporary expedients. His closing words were, " I 
shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the 
Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; 
and even should I see it fall, I will still, with a voice, feeble 
perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and 
with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call 



286 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

on the people to come to its rescue." The press of the 
attendance on the floor and in the galleries and lobbies was 
great, and as he concluded there was a spontaneous burst of 
applause which caused the galleries to be cleared. The 
speech was not completed until eight o'clock at night.^ 

The friends of nullification fought on the 18th of Feb- 
ruary, as they had done before, for further time. But the 
administration party opposed the extension just 
as strenuously as they had hitherto done.^ An 
amendment proposed by Forsyth and modified at Kane's 
suggestion, the purposes of which was to limit the existence 
of the entire act and not simply of the first and fifth sec- 
tions to the end of the next session of Congress, and limit- 
ing all suits under the act pending at the time of its expira- 
tion, was rejected. Calhoun voted for, Clay and Webster 
against this amendment. Poindexter attempted to make a 
diversion by proposing a new section, providing an appro- 
priation (left blank) for carrying out the purposes of the 
measure. Grundy objected that no money was wanted, 
which caused Calhoun to express his surprise. Grundy 
retorted that the Senator was more competent than any 
other person to determine whether or not there would 
be any necessity for the employment of force. In rejoinder 
the South Carolina Senator said that the whole business 
indicated an unsoundness of legislation. He was amazed 
at the course which had been taken. There would be 
no collision unless it proceeded from the conduct of che 
general government. The yeas on Poindexter's motion 
were only five — ^Bibb, Calhoun, Mangum, Moore, and Poin- 
dexter.^ A subsequent motion by Bibb to limit 
fTcTwii^^ ''^^ ^^^ expenses to three millions of dollars was 
rejected by a vote of four to thirty-eight. The 
remainder of the day appears to have been consumed in a 
debate between Forsyth and Miller. Fors}i:h, although a 
man of more ability, maintained himself, if at all, with 
difiiculty. The Senator from Georgia said that nullification 

1 Eegister of Debates, p. 587. ' Ibid., p. 589. ^ » Ibid., p. 692. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 287 

bore the appearance of sneaking into war. The Senator 
from South Carolina thought that the Senator's idea was 
purely original. " If," he remarked, " the gentleman from 
Georgia dislikes South Carolina nulMcation because it 
savors of sneaking into a fight, he must permit me to reply 
that I dislike Georgia nullification so far as it savored of 
sneaking out of a fight." 

The Revenue Collection bill was read a third time and 
put upon its passage on the 19th of February. Poindexter 
made an extended speech, which was not con- 

. February 19. 

eluded until the following day.^ He argued 
that although the Constitution in some of its features might 
be executed by the popular will, the original character of 
the government was not thereby changed. He committed 
an error, avoided by his friends in the debate, ^ ^ ^ 

' •' , ' Debate on the 

when he assumed that because the machinery passage of the 
for setting up the Constitution was the con- 
federation and the States individually the completed work 
was not ratified by the people immediately. But the drift 
of his long argument, which was not very gracefully pre- 
sented, was that the whole people as a mass did not adopt 
the Constitution. He drew, as others had done, upon the 
history of the government for examples of conflict between 
the State and federal powers. Among the authorities cited 
was Hamilton in the New York convention which ratified 
the Constitution, whom he quoted as saying that coercion 
was one of maddest projects that was ever devised.^ Poin- 
dexter read the proceedings of the Congress and of public 
meetings to convict Webster of inconsistency on the subject 
of the tariff and the enforcement of measures deemed op- 
pressive in New England. Among "Webster's votes thus 
cited were those in the House of Representatives refusing 
supplies to carry on the war with Great Britain.^ 

On the last day of the debate in the Senate on this ques- 



^ Eegister of Debates, pp. 602-661. 
» Ibid., p. 630 ; Hamilton's Works. 
» Ibid., p. 656. 



288 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

tion Poindexter was followed by Grundy and Ewing.^ The 
latter's was a very subtle argument. The people have the 

right to create or modify their government. 

The right is put beyond cavil when the peo- 
ple, regularly convened, adopt the change. He did not 
object to the term compact; the Constitution was, indeed, 
a new social compact. But it did not follow that the par- 
ties to it had the right to violate or annul it. Sovereignty, 
in his view, was alienable and divisible. Calhoun proposed 
that the final vote should not be taken until next morning 
when the Senate would be full. All motions to adjourn, 
however, were withdrawn or voted down.^ The bill passed 
,.,^ ^ ^.„ by thirty-one yeas to one nay — Tyler. Reasons 

The Force bill J J ^ ^ J J 

passes the Sen- for absence assigned the next day on the appli- 
cation of Bibb for leave to record their votes 

showed great indiiierence or affected indifference on the 

part of the nullifiers and their friends. 

Clay's tariff bill was reported from the select committee 

with amendments on the 21st of February. After a short 
debate these amendments were asrreed to upon 

February 21. . . . 

Clay's tariff bill Mr. Clay's suggcstiou.* Hc explained the bill 
repor . -^ reference to objections urged by Forsyth 

and Dickerson. Webster opposed both bill and amend- 
ments. In all the consideration of this measure from the 
first day there was grave difference, not only between its 
friends and avowed enemies, but between the two bodies of 
Home vaiuar ^^^ supportcrs, on the question of a home valua- 
tion of imports, tion of imports in the adjustment of duties.^ 
Clay admitted the impracticability of establishing the system 
at that time, but desired to have the principle acknowledged. 
The amendment' providing for it was advocated by Clay, 
Holmes, Clayton, and Poindexter, and opposed by Smith, 
Forsyth, Calhoun, Dallas, Kane, Silsbee, and Tyler. The 
objections to the proposition were various : that it was incon- 

^ Register of Debates, pp. 661-676, 676-687. 

* The last vote on adjournment showed the presence of five only of the 
enemies of the measure, 

* Register of Debates, p. 694. * Ibid., ct seq. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 183S. 289 

venient and unjust; that it prevented uniformity in the 
operation of the revenue laws as prescribed by the Consti- 
tution, and built up some ports at the expense of others.' 
Calhoun said that according to his present impressions he 
could not vote for the bill wdth this amendment in it. Clay- 
ton declared that he could not support the bill without the 
amendment.^ He observed that he voted for the measure 
on the ground that it might save South Carolina from her- 
self. But Calhoun hoped that the gentleman would not 
touch that question. He entreated him to believe that 
South Carolina had no fears for herself. She 
sought not to relieve herself only, but the whole ciares"° south 
nation, from oppressive legislation. Affain he Carolina has no 

' J- ^ ° . , " fears for herself. 

averred that it was not his wish that there 
should be a feeling of victory on either side.^ Clayton 
showed a disposition to table the bill for the time being, 
announcing his disbelief that it would pass in the seven 
days remaining of the session. But Clay and Poin dexter 
expressed the hope that the measure would not be defeated 
upon speculative points and by numerous amendments and 
debate thereon. Moore's amendment — a proviso "that no 
valuation be adopted that will operate unequally in different 
ports of the United States" — was advocated by Black, Cal- 
houn, Moore, and Forsyth, and opposed by Holmes. The 
debate was resumed on this point on the 22d of ^ ^ _ 

■•• _ ^ ^ February 22. 

February. Hill fought the bill, with or without 
amendment. Smith said that there was no reason to sup- 
pose that it would satisfy South Carolina, but somewhat in- 
consistently added that she would not be satisfied with it 
unless she had discovered that she had gone too far, and 
wished to retrace her steps.* Notwithstanding the predic- 
tions of the Senators from Kentucky and South Carolina, 
that the bill would be regarded as permanent, he predicted 
that the pressure would be so great on the next Congress it 



^ New York, according to some of the speakers, was the favored port 
under the operation of the principle. 
» Register of Debates, p. 697. ' Ibid., p. 700. * Ibid., p. 705. 

19 



290 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

would be compelled to revise it.^ Wright did not consider 
the provision binding on future Congresses. But this was 
not his only objection. Foreign valuation was preferable, 
because competition to reduce valuation, which would take 
jilace in various quarters, would result unfavorably to manu- 
facturers by causing the price of home manufactures to fall.^ 
Webster contended that home valuation to any extent was 
impracticable. He favored specific duties. Clayton insisted 
that home valuation was not only practicable, but highly 
important. Webster claimed that the practice of laying a 
general ad valorem valuation Avas unprecedented. Clayton 
argued that goods would go where the price was the highest 
and where the government would derive most from the sale. 
Amendments Moorc's amendment was rejected.^ Dickerson's 
rejected. amendment, which was to leave the details of 

the home valuation of imports to the President and Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, was generally opposed, and lost Avithout 
division.* Upon Clay's amendment Benton observed that it 
would destroy the effect and turn into a mere illusion the ulti- 
mate reduction to twenty per cent, as proposed in the bill. It 
would be also almost fatal to Southern ports. It would create 
additional expense, confer patronage, beget rivalries between 
importing cities, and injure merchants by the detention 
and handling of their goods.^ An amendment by Robbins 
providing that if the home valuation regulation should not 
be established by Congress on or before 1842 the bill should 
cease to have effect, and be superseded by the tariflf of 1832, 
was rejected without a division. As the question upon 
Calhoun states ^lay's amendment was about to be taken Cal- 
his reasons for houu remarked that it became necessary for 
Clay's amend- him to determine ^ whether he should vote for 
™^°*- or against it. He must be permitted again to 

express his regret that the Senator had thought proper to 
move it. His objection still remains strong against it, but 



1 Register of Debates, p. 707. ^ Ibid., p. 709. » Ibid., p. 711. 

*Ibid. 5 Ibid, ^p, 715^ 

^ That is, to re-determine. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 291 

as it see.med to be conceded on all hands that the fate of the 
measure depended on the fate of the amendment, feehng as 
he did a satisfaction to see the question terminated, he had 
made up his mind, not, however, without much hesitation, 
not to interpose his vote against the adoption of the amend- 
ment. But in voting for it he wished it distinctly to be 
understood that he did it upon two considerations: first, 
that no valuation would be adopted that should come in 
conflict with the provision in the Constitution which declares 
that duties, excises, and imposts shall be uniform ; and in 
the next place, that none would be adopted which would 
make the duties themselves a part of the element of a home 
valuation. He felt justified in concluding that neither would 
be adopted, as the one came in conflict with a provision of 
the Constitution and the other would involve the glaring 
absurdity of imposing duties on duties. He said that he 
wished the reporters for the press to notice particularly what 
he was saying, as he intended his declaration to be part of 
the proceedings. Believing then, for the reasons which he 
had stated, that it was not contemplated that any regulation 
of the home valuation should come in conflict with the pro- 
visions of the Constitution which he had cited, nor involve 
the absurdity of laying taxes upon taxes, he had made up 
his mind to vote in favor of the amendment.^ Smith re- 
marked that any declaration of views and motives under 
which any individual Senator might vote would have no in- 
fluence in 1842. They would be forgotten long before that 
time arrived. The law must rest upon the interpretation of 
its words alone. Calhoun replied that he could nx)t help 
that. He should endeavor to do his duty. Clayton ob- 
served that there was certainly no ambiguity in the phrase- 
ology of the amendment. The home valuation amendment 
proposed by Mr. Clay was then adopted by the subjoined 
vote : Yeas — Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay, 
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hill, Holmes, Johns- 
ton, King, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, 



Register of Debates, p. 716. 



292 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Prentiss, Rives, Robbing, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tvler, "Wil- 
kins, twenty-six ; nays — Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, 
Dudley, Forsytb, Grundy, Kane, Robinson, Seymour, Sils- 
bee. Smith, Waggaman, Webster, White, Wright, sixteen.' 
This was the test vote on the Compromise measure, and 
afterwards the contest was simply to make a consistent 
record. The coalition between the great leaders 

Test vote. . , . . 

The coalition 01 protection and anti-protection was complete 
triumphant. ^^^ victorious. The one was actuated, or pro- 
fessed to be actuated, by the fear that otherwise the princi- 
ple of protection was lost; the other was moved by the 
peril of his situation and by the prospect of a practical tri- 
umph over his hated rival, the President. Loftier motives 
undoubtedly influenced both Clay and Calhoun. The meas- 
ure was one of conciliation. It was offered by the only 
Motives of Clay ^^tor in thcsc cveuts who had the power to make 
and Calhoun, j^jg tender of the olive branch acceptable. It 
was accepted because it could with dignity be accepted by 
men who were too haughty to recede before menace and 
too conscious of the substantial justice of their cause, however 
it might appear to others, to be willing to barter it for any- 
thing less than a great part of that for which they had so 
many years contended. On the one side were arrayed the 
Jackson, or, as it began to be called, the Democratic, party 
and a certain portion of the National Republicans, soon to 
be called Whigs ; on the other, the majority of the National 
Republicans under their trusted leader, the nullifiers and 
their State rights friends, and three or four of the Ad- 
ministration Senators. The Union at any cost was the 
principle of action of the former ; the Union by conciliation 
was the doctrine of the latter. As the Union had before 
been saved in peace, so now it was to be preserved, and the 
same commanding but flexible figure of grace and magnet- 
ism was to be the Salvator Patriae. 

A debate began on the 22d and was continued on the 23d 
of February on Smith's motion, suggested by Tyler, to ex- 

^ Begister of Debates, p. 716 j Senate Journal, p. 204. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 183S. 293 

punge the part of the bill which increased duties on plains, 
kerseys, and kendal cottons. Licidentall j connected with this 
was the question of the power of the Senate to originate bills 
professedly to reduce revenue, but containing a feature that 
would increase it as to one item. Smith modified his motion 
so as to strike out the whole second section which contained 
the provision. Benton said that the American system, as a 
whole, would be given up in 1842.^ "Webster contended 
against Clayton that this was a revenue measure and could 
not originate in the Senate. Clay and Clayton averred that 
the Senate had again and again decided that it could originate 
such bills. Webster declared that he would go as far as any 
man for conciliation on proper principles. The other side, 
he showed, were impelled by dififerent reasons in supporting 
the bill ; one because it secured protection, another because 
it destroyed protection.^ In reply, Clay remarked that the 
Senator from Massachusetts opposed this proposition of 
peace and harmony and wished to send forth the menace of 
force alone. " The gentleman," retorted Webster, " has no 
authority for making that assertion." While in one portion 
of his remarks Clay affirmed that his purpose was double, 
to secure protection and to conciliate the South, in another 
place he observed that his object was " protection and pro- 
tection alone." He favored a gradual reduction. Again he 
said that he had been anxious to abolish duties on raw cot- 
ton that he might bring the South to Congress to ask for 
protection. He himself stood on the same ground of pro- 
tection on which he had always stood. He averred that he 
deeply regretted the course of Webster, " who had opposed 
everything and proposed nothing." ^ In his rejoinder Web- 
ster called attention to his resolutions, offered some time 
before. The motion to strike out the second section of the 
bill was lost, — ayes, fourteen ; noes, twenty-nine. By nearly 
the same vote Smith's amendment to Kane's amendment, 
the effect of which motions was to provide that nothing in 
the act should be construed to extend to existing duties on 



Register of Debates, p. 721. » Ibid., p. 723. » Ibid., p. 724. 



294 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

lead in pigs, bars, or sliorts, leaden shot, bar iron, castings, 
cannon, shells, gunpowder, and certain other articles, was re- 
rejected, and the original amendment itself was negatived.^ 
The motion of Forsyth to strike out the third and sixth 
sections, which were intended to bind future Congresses, 
was lost by a vote of thirteen to twenty-eight. On these 
questions Webster voted with Benton and the other Senar 
tors of the Jackson party. The nullifiers and their friends, 
the bulk of the National Republicans, and one or two of 
the Administration Senators constituted the negative ma- 
jority. Benton's motion for a reduction of the drawback 
on exported articles manufactured in the United States from 
foreign materials subject to duty in the same proportion as 
the reduction in the bill was lost after discussion. The effort 
of Wright to restore the duty on wool costing less than eight 
cents at the place of exportation to the rate of 1828, the pur- 
pose having been to accompany the change of the tariff on 
woollen goods, w^as abortive. The proposition received only 
seven votes, one of which was Webster's.^ 

Prolonged discussion took place on the amendment, 
which provided that after 1842 such duties should be levied 

as an economical expenditure might require. 

It was contended by the Senators in opposition 
that these words, although not so intended, would be con- 
strued by Southern gentlemen in 1842 as an abandonment 
of the protective policy. Clay and Clayton regarded the 
words as authorizing no such construction, and denied that 
any one would be justified in inferring that there would be 
an abandonment of the system of protection. Forsyth 
thought that the clause was an absurdity on which an argu- 
ment either for or against protection might be erected ; but 
as among the many absurdities in the bill it was the only one 
agreeable to him, he would vote for it. A motion to strike 
the words out was lost by a vote of fourteen to twenty-two. 
The bill then came up on its third reading.^ 

On the 25th of February Webster occupied the floor. 

1 Register of Debates, p. 724. * Ibid., p. 726. ^ i^i^j^ 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 295 

Both he and Clay, who followed, began their remarks by- 
personal compliments to each other. "Webster also praised 
the character, zeal, and services of Calhoun. February 25. 
He opposed the bill because it imposed a re- Webster. 
striction upon future legislation, and because it seemed to 
yield the constitutional power of protection. The Southern 
politicians were masters of the game, and they knew it. 
He viewed the bill as a surrender of all the interests of the 
smaller capitalists and a concession in favor of overgrown 
monopolists.^ He thought that his constituents would ex- 
cuse him for surrendering their interests, but they would 
not forgive him for a violation of the Constitution.^ In his 
reply to Webster, Clay said that the measure was a com- 
promise, but it imposed and could impose no restriction 
upon the will or power of a future Congress. It was de- 
clared to be far from the purpose of those who supported 
the bill to abandon or surrender the policy of protecting 
American industry. The expected plethoric condition of 
the Treasury had impressed every public man with the 
necessity of some modification of the principle of protection, 
so far as it depended on high duties. He defined the 
difi[erence between the bill and Webster's resolutions as 
consisting in the fact that the former prescribed a limit for 
discrimination, while the resolutions of the Senator from 
Massachusetts laid down no such limit. He repeated his 
twofold reasons for introducing the measure, and outlined 
the dangers to which he thought the tariif was exposed. A 
majority of the adverse party were hostile to it. Protection 
would lose three members in the Senate, and was not sure 
of gaining one. There was a considerable accession to the 
other party in the House. Two New England States had 
changed recently against the system, and other States 
North and East were showing remarkable indifference. 
Discontents, coextensive with the entire South and extend- 
ing to the North, were multiplying. Judging, he said, 
from appearances, protection would be in the minority at 



Register of Debates, p. 728. =* Ibid., p. 729. 



296 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the next session. He appealed to Webster to show how the 
tariff was to be saved against " this united and irresistil)le 
force." There was some reason for beheving that twenty 
per cent, might be sufficient protection after 1842. He and 
Clayton, he stated, had been out-voted in the committed on 
the proposition to withdraw protection from cotton.^ Since 
the passage of the Force bill some measure of conciliation 
was necessary. He answered the charge that he had been 
actuated in the matter by ambition by the assertion that if 
he had thought only of himself he would never have intro- 
duced the bill.^ 

On the next day the Senate considered Calhoun's resolu- 
tions on the nature and powers of the federal government. 
In support of them their author made an in- 
Great^?rgu- Comparable argument. He was upon his favorite 
ment by cai- p;round. The subject was one upon which he 

houn in sup- '-' '' i i i 

port of his was pcrhaps more thoroughly prepared to speak 
reso utions. ^^^^^ ^^^ other man living. The time, too, was 
well chosen. He was vindicating his own and his State's 
opinions, not as one who looks in dismay for defeat and 
disgrace, but as one who is already assured of substantial 
victory. For the first half of the speech the chain of 
reasoning seems absolutely unassailable, conceding his 
premises. In the latter portion two or three positions are 
assumed which are not strictly in accordance with the settled 
principles of any school, and which he does not succeed in 
maintaining. But altogether this must be considered, if 
judged by any correct standard of criticism, to be the most 
powerful speech he had made up to that time.^ In the 
outset he complained of Webster for gi\"ing the discussion 
a personal direction, but did not complain of him for re- 
plying to the resolutions in a speech on the Force bill, the 



^ Register of Debates, p. 737. 

" For this speech see Register of Debates, pp. 729-742. The debate 
was continued by others. The reporter collated several of Mr. Clay's 
speeches on the subject with the one under consideration. See, also, 
Clay's Speeches, edited by Greeley, vol ii. pp. 139, 157. 

3 Register of Debates, pp. 750-774 ; also Works of Calhoun, ii. 262. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 18S3. 297 

resolutions having been laid aside. Webster was right in 
directing his argument exclusively against the first resolu- 
tion. The Senator from Massachusetts having denied to 
him the right to use the expression " constitutional compact," 
he read a whole passage from the speech of that Senator, 
delivered on the 26th of January, 1830, wherein the ex- 
pression occurred. The Constitution itself was spoken of 
in that speech as a compact.* But Calhoun modified his 
r,esolution so as to make it accord with Webster's sugges- 
tion : " Resolved^ That the people of the United States are 
united as parties to a compact under the title of the Consti- 
tution of the United States, which the people of each State 
ratified," etc., the words " constitutional compact" and 
"accede" having been omitted. "For my part, with my 
poor powers of conception," he observed when he had done 
this, " I cannot perceive the slightest difierence between the 
resolution as first introduced and as it is proposed to be 
amended in conformity to the views of the Senator." 
Having disposed of Webster's verbal criticism, he passed to 
the consideration of that gentleman's assault of " the very 
horn of the citadel of State rights." " The Senator clearly 
perceived," he said, " that if the Constitution be a compact, 
it was impossible to deny the assertions contained in the 
resolution, or to resist the consequences which I had drawn 
from them, and accordingly he directed his whole fire 
against that point ; but after so vast an expenditure of am- 
munition not the slightest impression, so far as I can per- 
ceive, has been made." After examination of the notes 
which he had made of the Senator's speech, he was at a 
loss to know whether in the opinion of the Senator our 
Constitution was a compact or not, though almost the entire 
argument was directed to that point. Calhoun collated 
sentences showing that it was the purpose to prove a gov- 
ernment, not a compact, and the right of secession if the 



1 Still more unequivocally, Webster, in his great speech of 1850 on the 
Constitution and the Union, employs the phrase "the compact of the 
Constitution." 



298 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

latter. Webster had also said that it was a constitution, 
not a compact, and that the Constitution rested on compact, 
but was not a compact itself. In discussing the prohibitions 
by the Constitution on the States, Webster had observed 
that the language used was that of a superior to an inferior, 
and therefore not the language of a compact, which implies, 
the equality of the parties. As a proof, Webster had cited 
the several provisions that no State shall enter into treaties 
of alliance and confederation, lay imposts, etc., without the 
consent of Congress. Calhoun showed that if Webster had 
turned to the articles of confederation, which he acknowl- 
edged to have been a compact, he would have found that 
the Constitution borrowed those very prohibitory provisions 
from that instrument. If he had extended his researches, 
he would have found that it was the habitual language 
used in treaties whenever a stipulation was made against 
the performance of any act. He cited Jay's treaty of 1793 
with Great Britain, in which the very language used in the 
Constitution was employed. He averred that Webster had 
asked, with an air of triumph, Wliere are the evidences of 
stipulation? The State ratifications cited by the Senator 
on the occasion contained stipulations. In reply to the 
denial that there were stipulations in the Constitution, he 
declared that that instrument was " a mass of stipulation." 
Calhoun continued : " Wliat is that but a stipulation to 
which the Senator refers when he states in the course of his 
argument that each State had agreed to participate in the 
sovereignty of the others ?" Again : " He asked, with a 
marked emphasis, ' Can a compact be the supreme law of 
the land ?' I ask in return whether treaties are not com- 
pacts, and whether treaties as well as the Constitution are 
not declared to be the supreme law of the land ?" Calhoun 
does not object to Webster's definition of the Constitution 
as a fundamental law, though he said a more appropriate 
one, better adapted to American ideas, could be given. But 
he held the opinion, which Webster had rejected, that the 
fundamental law might be a compact. He quoted to sustain 
his position from Burlamaqui, Magna Charta, and the reso- 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 299 

lution of the House of Commons in 1688, which latter de- 
clared the throne abdicated by James II., he having broken 
the original contract between the king and the people. 
Calhoun then asked : " But why should I refer to writers 
on the subject of government or enquire into the constitu- 
tion of foreign states, when there are such decisive proofs 
that our Constitution is a compact? On this point the 
Senator is estopped. I borrow from the gentleman and 
thank him for the word. His adopted State, which he so 
ably represents on this floor, and his native State (the 
States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire) both de- 
clared in their ratification of the Constitution that it was a 
compact." He quoted these ratifications, and proceeded to 
consider the resolutions of the Virginia Legislature in 1798, 
and the responses of Massachusetts and other States. In 
the cases of Delaware, New York, Connecticut, New Hamp- 
shire, and Vermont the replies, he assumed, gave counte- 
nance to the doctrine by silence on that head. One of the 
utterances of Massachusetts, however, was very explicit: 
" That the people in that solemn compact which is declared 
to be the supreme law of the land," etc. "Webster had 
said that the Constitution was not a compact because it was 
a government. " I would ask the Senator," observed Cal- 
houn, " whoever considered a government when spoken of 
as the agent to execute the powers of the Constitution as 
distinct from the Constitution itself as a compact ? In 
that light it would be a perfect absurdity." He was un- 
certain of the meaning of the Senator from Massachusetts 
in that part of his argument where he asserted that the 
government was founded on compact, but was no longer a 
compact. " K he meant, as I presume he did, that the 
compact is an executed and not an executory one; that 
its object was to create a government and to invest it 
with a proper authority; and that having executed this 
ofiice, it had performed its functions and with it had ceased 
to exist, then we have the extraordinary avowal that the 
Constitution is a dead letter, — that it has ceased to have 
any binding eflfect, or any practical influence or operation. 



300 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

I had thought that the Constitution was to endure forever." 
The steps of State independence up to ratification, he 
afiirmed, " formed a hody of facts too clear to be denied 
and too strong to be resisted." It would be a great change 
if ratification converted the American people into one 
people, at least to the extent of the delegated powers. 
With the exception of the words in the preamble, the Sen- 
ator had not pointed out a single indication in the Consti- 
tution of the great change which he conceived had been 
effected in this respect. Calhoun contended that these 
words in the preamble, ""We the people of the United 
States," were at least as applicable to his own view as to 
that of the Senator from Massachusetts. Wliatever might 
be the future meaning of this expression, it was not appli- 
cable to the condition of the States as they existed under 
the Constitution, but as it was under the old confederation. 
The Constitution had not yet been adopted, and the States in 
ordaining it could only speak of themselves in the condition 
in which they then existed, and not in that in which they 
would exist under the Constitution. But he did not intend 
to leave this important point, the last refuge of those who 
advocated consolidation, even on this conclusive argument. 
He went to the Constitution itself, and quoted the Viith 
article, where ratification by nine States was declared to be 
sufficient to establish the Constitution " between the States 
so ratifying the same." He said farther that an argument 
not much less powerful, but of a different character, could 
be drawn fi'om the reserved powers to " the States" in the 
Xth amendment. 

From " these established facts" Calhoun deduced the con- 
sequences that ours was a federal system, a system of States 
arranged in a federal union, and each retaining 
its distinct existence and sovereignty. He de- 
clared that our government had every attribute belonging 
to a federal system. It was founded on compact; it was 
formed by sovereign communities ; and was binding between 
them in their sovereign capacities. The present Constitu- 
tion was the act of States themselves, or, what was the same 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 301 

thing, of the people of the several States, and formed a 
union of them as sovereign communities. He argued that 
there was no more reason why a federal union should blend 
into a mass than there would be if the parts were governments 
rather than people. Indeed, Calhoun went to the verge of 
his argument, if he did not go further, when he assumed 
that the old confederation was not a constitution or govern- 
ment. This he said was due to the difference of origin, — 
the one from the governments of States, the other from the 
people. " According to our American conception, the peo- 
ple alone can form constitutions or governments, and not 
their agents." ^ 

Wliere does sovereignty reside ? He answered : In the 
federal system, in the parts, not the whole. Ours, he de- 
fined, was a government of twenty-four sover- ^^ ^^^ federal 
eignties, united by constitutional compact, for system sover- 

,1 J, . . ^ . ji 1 eignty resides 

tne purpose ot exercising certain powers through in the parts and 
a common government as their joint agent, and ^o*^ t^^^ whole. 
not a union of twenty-four sovereignties into one, which 
would be a consolidation. Modifications in the conditions 
of States were modifications of powers exercised, not of the 
sovereignty itself. The provision as to change of the Con- 
stitution by three-fourths of the States furnished strong evi- 
dence that the sovereignty was in the States severally. It 
followed that the allegiance of the people was to their sev- 
eral States, and that treason consisted in resistance to the 
joint authority of the States united, and not, as 
had been contended, to the government of the 
United States, which had only the right of punishing. 
He said that these conclusions showed that the States could 
violate no law ; that the worst that could be imputed to 
them was a violation of compact, for which they and not 
their citizens were responsible.^ The system comprehended 



^ The American conception since the Constitution went into operation. 

* He does not make sufficiently clear in this place that it is individual 
citizens whom he intends, and not the body of citizens acting in a sover- 
eign capacity. According to his theory, the States and the people of the 
States were synonymous expressions in the sense here referred to. 



302 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

but one government properly considered, the general and 
State government being distinct in operation but forming 
parts of an entire system of which the State was the basis. 
He met Webster's argument that a government had a right 
to judge of its powers in this manner : Admit it, and how 
would he withhold from the State governments the right of 
judging which he has attributed to the general government ? 
The Senator from Massachusetts felt the force of this argu- 
ment and fell back on the clause in the Constitution which 
declared the Constitution and laws made in pursuance 
thereof the supreme law of the land. Calhoun said that no 
one had ever denied this. But it was equally undeniable 
that laws not so made were of no authority whatever, being 
of themselves null and void. The Senator from Massa- 
chusetts saw this difficulty also, and attempted to meet it by 
setting up the right of judgment on the part of Congress 
and the Supreme Court. Having quoted Webster's language 
on this head, he pronounced it to be " vague and loose 
phraseology." Calhoun asked : " On what principle would 
he confer this extensive power on the legislature and judi- 
ciary, and not on the executive ?" He also desired to know 
on what principle it was to be withheld from the State gov- 
ernments. He would not repeat the argument made on 
another occasion to sustain the right of the State govern- 
ments, but he quoted Virginia's ratification of the Constitu- 
tion, which asserted the right to resume the powers granted 
in the Constitution if they were abused. "Webster had 
quoted Madison in the Federalist in favor of the opposite 
doctrine. Calhoun brought out Madison's later view in the 
Virginia Report of 1799. The South Carolina Senator is 
hardly perspicuous in his statement of the State veto power. 
He never had a correct view of the subject, it would appear- 
from a perusal of his doctrine as stated in earlier and later 
speeches and his treatise on the Government. In conclusion 
he replied to various arguments employed by Webster. 
Calhoun admired the courage and gallantry of the Senator, 
but said that he would find spirits as gallant as his own. 
The Force bill was more dangerous to liberty than the tariff. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 303 

"With high prescience he expressed his amazement at For- 
syth's ominous reference to the provision of the Constitution 
which guaranteed repubhcan government to the States; he 
had supposed that every Southern Senator at least would have 
been awake to the danger which menaced us from that new 
quarter. Now, he declared, no hostile feelings combined 
with political considerations on this delicate subject in any 
section. But it required no stretch of the imagination to 
see the danger which one day nmst come, if not vigilantly 
watched. 

Webster replied briefly and inconclusively. Having reit- 
erated his ^'iews, he said he hoped it was not possible that 
he should be influenced in support or opposition of im- 
portant measures by the purpose, ascribed to Webster's 
him by Calhoun, of obtaining favor in any quar- ^piy. 
ter by hostility to that gentleman. He expressed his re- 
spect for Calhoun and averred that their private inter- 
course had been one of amity and Idndness. At this point 
the Senator from South Carolina arose and declared that 
these remarks were such as he himself had intended to 
make. "Webster explained his use of the phraseology, 
"constitutional compact," in 1880. He was then speaking 
of one part of the agreement on which the Constitution 
was founded, namely, the agreement that the slave-holding 
States should possess more than an equal proportion of 
Representatives. There was propriety perhaps in calling 
iNorth Carolina's adoption of the Constitution an accession, 
because she had not come into the new, the old Union hav- 
ing been broken up. He, however, stood obstinately by his 
claim that " accede" was a term unknown to all the ratifica- 
tions and to the Constitution itself. He contended that 
Calhoun's changes in his first resolution were merely verbal. 
"Let him say nothing of compact, because the people said 
nothing of it." He asserted that Calhoun had been mis- 
taken from the ground which he said Calhoun had taken, 
that the people could make but one government, and that 
they had not united in establishing a 'constitution connect- 
ing them together as individuals under one government. 



304 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

The Viltli article had no bearing on the question at issue ; 
for the word " States" there meant " the people of the 
States," and he insisted that ours was a government and 
not a league of independent States.^ 

Sprague admitted that the States adopted the Constitution 
as independent communities, but denied the doctrine that 
sovereignty was inalienable. He said that the whole his- 
tory of the human race falsified that assumption.^ Forsyth 
is represented as saying that by the Constitution the people 
had surrendered their sovereignty with the exception of 
equality of representation in the House.^ 

Grundy refused to withdraw his resolutions in amend- 
ment, and Calhoun, not desiring in the temper of the Senate 
at the time to have other resolutions preferred 

Disposition 

made of the to his owu, stated that he would not call for 
resolutions. ^ ^^^^^ Grundy's substitute would have been 
voted on first. On motion of Forsyth the resolutions were 
laid on the table.^ 

It is time we were attending to the proceedings of this 
eventful session in the House of Representatives. A bill 

introduced on the 27th of December, 1832, by 
Representa- Vcrplanck, of New York, chairman of the Com- 
tives. Decern- mittee ou Ways and Means, was reported by 

him on the day following. The President's 
message, so far as it related to the subject of the tarifi:', had 
been referred to this committee on the 10th of December. 
And as this topic and that of the conduct of afiairs in South 
Carolina were intimately connected, it must be stated here 
that on the same day on which the tariff bill of Mr. Ver- 
planck was introduced the House refused by a vote of one 
hundred and six to sixty-five to consider a resolution of re- 
quest offered by Adams calling upon the President to fur- 
nish to the House a copy of his proclamation of the 10th of 



^ Register of Debates, pp. 774-777. This speech is not found in the large 
Boston edition of Webster's Works. 

* But the only instance mentioned by him (Coblentz) was not in point, 
for it was not an independent State. Register of Debates, p. 780. 

=> Ibid., p. 784. * Ibid., p. 785. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 305 

December and of the ordinance of the South Carolina con- 
vention to which it referred.^ After considerable opposition 
from the protectionists the House decided on the 7th of 
January to take up the tariff bill at one o'clock 

• 1 • A 1 Ml r' 1833. January 7. 

each day for consideration.^ A bill for the TheVerpianck 
remission of certain duties to importers who 
complained of surprise in the passage of the last tariff act 
was reported from the Committee on Commerce and de- 
bated on the 3d and 7th of January, 1833.^ Surges, of 
Rhode Island, introduced a resolution providing for a com- 
mittee of one from each State to enquire into and report 
on the amount of money paid by each State on imports, 
on home manufactures exported, tonnage, postage, distilled 
spirits, and other articles. The resolution embraced a 
large number of particulars.* The tariff bill was then con- 
sidered by a vote of ninety-four to seventy-eight.^ Yer- 
planck explained the provisions of the measure, after a few 
remarks to the effect that the wisdom or justice of tariff 
laws since the war was not to be a subject of enquiry. An 
honorable and gratifying duty was to be entered upon, that 
of a reduction of the taxes. The debt had been extinguished 
under the operation of the tariff acts he had referred to. 
He said: " Let us be grateful for the past." He concluded 
with a suggestion that thirteen millions of revenue might be 
dispensed with, and that Congress would not be justifiable 
in retaining more than fifteen millions as a permanent reve- 
nue.^ In the course of the discussion which followed on 
subsequent days it was objected that the measure was pre- 
mature and pressed too urgently ; ^ that it was a perversion 
of terms to call it a gradual reduction ; that the recent re- 
duction was yet an untried experiment ; that goods would 
be poured in from abroad to the injury of home manufac- 
tures ; that two and a half millions from public lands was 

> Register of Debates, pp. 822, 916. * Ibid., p. 948, et seq. 

* Ibid., pp. 835, 944, 952. * Ibid., p. 956. 

* Ibid., p. 958. The main provisions of this bill will appear in the 
statement of the debate. 

6 Ibid., p. 962, et seq. ^ Ibid., pp. 964, 973. 

20 



306 A HISTORY OF TBE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

not to be relied upon ; ^ that the committee had reduced the 
revenue by other provisions below the wants of the govern- 
ment and were obliged to supply the deficiency by duties on 
coffee, tea, and silk ; that of the Secretary's alleged surplus 
on the 1st of January of $1,600,000, $700,000 was a trust 
fund to be paid to be claimants under Danish spoliations, as 
it was money received from Denmark for that purpose, and 
was in no sense government funds ; ^ that the proposed meas- 
ure was in itself partial, unjust, and inequitable in its bear- 
ing on the diversified interests affected by it ; ^ that in the 
midst of the uncertainties thrown around the subject by the 
differences between the plans of the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury and the Committee of Ways and Means, no legislation 
was called for, and finally that it was the play of children to 
pass a law at one session and before it had gone into opera- 
tion or an experiment could be made of its effects to enact 
another.* Besides these and like arguments Dearborn 
treated of nullification, which he pronounced to be high 
treason ; and several speakers assumed that the bill would 
not satisfy South Carolina.^ Choate asserted the constitu- 
tional power to levy duties beyond the revenue limit. But 
he admitted that the public temper was against such an as- 
sertion of power. A favorite argument was that all reve- 
nue should come from imposts and none from the public 
lands.^ Choate said that the Southern States had not at any 
time paid a fair, constitutional portion of the taxes. At 
length, on the 15th of January, the first speech 
in support of Verplanck was heard. It was by 
Gilmore, of Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.^ 

The House refused by a very large majority to consider 
The House re- Stcwart's rcsolutiou providing for the distribu- 
jects Stewart's ^^^^ ^f ^]^g surplus amoug the States according 

surplus resolu- r o o 

tion. to representation, after the payment of the pub- 

lic debt. The resolution also provided that half of the 

» Register of Debates, p. 969. ^ Ibid., p. 979. * Ibid., p. 982. 

* Ibid., p. 997. * Ibid., pp. 1051, 1057, and other places, 

e Ibid., p. 1067. ' Ibid., p. 1087. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 307 

amount should go to works of internal improvement, and 
the other to general education.^ 

The President furnished copies of the nullification ordi- 
nance and other papers, accompanied by a message. The 
opposition desired to postpone all consideration, but the 
President's friends, being in a majority, secured a reference 
of the matter to the Judiciary Committee.^ 

Two resolutions offered by ex-President Adams provided 
(1) that the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to report 
to the House a list of articles upon which the , . 

Resolutions by 

reduction of six millions might be made for the ex-President 
most part upon those denominated protected, ^^^' 
without prejudice to the reasonable claims of existing estab- 
lishments ; and (2) that the President be requested to com- 
municate a list of articles which are indispensable to our 
safety in time of war and to which it was stated in his mes- 
sage that the policy of protection must ultimately be lim- 
ited.^ These resolutions were debated one hoUr every day 
until the 24th of January, when they were tabled. 

On the 17th of January, when the tariff bill was resumed. 
Root, of ISTew York, declared that South Carolina would not 
insist that no recognition of the protective princi- January i7. 
pie should find place in the measure. It was not The tariff wii. 
secession to declare a pretended act of Congress no law. 
Under the Constitution he thought that every State must 
give its assent to the secession of a State. But South Caro- 
lina was not acting a traitorous part ; while the 
principles of the President's message had always 
seemed to him and the party with which he had acted as 
heterodox. Nullification could not apply to the revenue 
laws, because those laws had always from the beginning of 
the government been constitutional.* In his second speech 
Yerplanck showed that there were always between three and 
five millions of appropriations not actually chargeable upon 

1 Eegister of Debates, p. 1054. =* Ibid., p. 1082. 

' Ibid., pp. 1090-1273. The discussion was chiefly between Adams and 
Hoffman. 
*lbid., pp. 1103-1115, 1121. 



308 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUOGLE. 

the income received during the next year. Reproached 
with having been intimidated, he repudiated for himself and 
his committee colleagues with indignation any such thought, 
but admitted that he might be influenced by fears for the 
public peace, — fears not of any present danger, but for the 
permanent stability of the Constitution. " Because we may 
have £t giant's strength," he enquired, " does it become us 
to use it like a giant ?" ^ In a friendly manner Jenifer, of 
Maryland, pointed out the demerits of the bill. 

JGnifcr 

He favored ad valorem duties. He would strike 
out the duties on sugar and coflfee and reduce those on iron.^ 
Denny, of Pennsylvania, said that the price of iron was 
half what it was in 181 8.'' He argued conversely to those 
who had urged reduction that protection was necessary to 
save the Union.* As the debate advanced White, of Louisi- 
ana, contended for a sugar duty increased to two and a half 
cents. So far nearly all the speaking had been done by the 
protectionists. Polk gave as a reason that his colleagues on 

the Ways and Means Committee had refrained 

Polk. 

because of the shortness of the session and the 
desire not to have the bill defeated by delay. He examined 
the collection of facts made and transmitted by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, a part of which was in manuscript. 
He sought to establish from this report by the testimony of 
manufacturers themselves that no disastrous fate would befall 

them under the operations of the bill.^ On the 

Reed. 

other side. Reed, of Massachusetts, stated that 
only one of many volumes of this evidence had been 
printed. The whale fisheries were not protected by the bill, 
although three hundred ships of the best quality and seven 

1 Register of Debates, p. 1130. * Ibid., p. 1139. 

» Ibid., p. 1147. * Ibid., p. 1155. 

^ Ibid., p. 1163. The Vermont wool factories made from twelve to forty 
per cent., the iron foundries from twenty to forty. Many of the Massa- 
chusetts woollen manufacturers refused to state their profits. "Woollen 
and cotton factories in New York and Pennsylvania showed profits of 
more than fourteen per cent, for the former and above twelve per cent, 
for the latter. Most of the testimony was favorable to a reduction of 
duties as proposed. — Register of Debates, p. 1163, et seq. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 309 

thousand seamen were engaged in it.^ Appleton, of the 
same State, remarked that " no friend of South Carohna 
would wish to see her satisfied with the bill. 
The world would say that she had been bragging 
high ; her object was filthy lucre." ^ Some of the debaters 
discussed the public lands and internal improvement ques- 
tions. Wilde, of Georgia, in the course of an elegant and 
impassioned speech, said sarcastically that the 
merits of the controversy were best summed up 
by the pithy saying of an Eastern manufacturer: " Of what 
use is the Union without the tariif ?" He claimed that the 
object of the protectionists was to make tea and coffee free 
in order to place prohibitory duties on wool, woollens, and 
cottons. The measure would be lost by carrying out the 
motion to exclude the two former articles.^ The President, 
he said, desired that the bill should pass, but the past con- 
duct of the Vice-President was not free from ambiguity, and 
he warned that gentleman's friends that the best evidence 
of their sincerity would be their votes. Vinton, on the 
other side, insisted that slave labor was the most 
favored of any in the country.* Facing the 
argument that the South became poorer and the North 
richer by the operation of the tarifi*, he found the explana- 
tion in the system of labor and investment in the latter 
which tended to accumulation, while, he averred, the South 
accumulated nothing.^ Congress would be disgraced and 
the nation dishonored if the bill were to pass while the 
South Carolina ordinance and address were unrecalled. 
The doctrines of nullification and secession, he declared, 
would be met at the point of the sword if attempted to 

» Register of Debates, p. 1189. "^ Ibid., p. 1224. 

» Ibid., p. 1253. * Ibid., p. 1277. 

^ Vinton ignored the fact that before the tariff and for many years both 
in the colonial era and under the Union the South, or at least a part of it, 
outstripped the North in prosperity. It would seem that then the slave- 
owners did accumulate something. But Vinton admitted the apparent 
prosperity of the South, which he ascribed to primogeniture, neglecting 
to state what caused the prosperity after the laws of primogeniture had 
been repealed. — Register of Debates, p. 1282. 



310 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

be carried out. He spoke in the same warlike vein at 
considerable length.^ One sentence of this speech induced 
McDuffie, who had remained silent during the debate up 
to this point to exclaim, "Robespierre!" This was fol- 
lowed by slio-ht hisses in various parts of the 

McDuffle cries , . . . 

"Robes- hall, and the Chair amid great sensation called 

Pierre. ^^^ order. Carson, of North Carolina, made 

some excited remarks and was called to order by Wat- 
mough, of Pennsylvania, who in turn was admonished by 
the Chair.^ 

Great restlessness had marked the proceedings for several 
days. The enemies of the bill endeavored repeatedly to 
adjourn the .House. The debate proceeded. Cambreleng 
thought that the committee's proposition was too large by 
"Geographical *^^^ millions. He deprecated "geographical 
prejudices." prcjudiccs" and the substitution of passion and 
imagination for reason and judgment.^ But he also reproved 
the \dndictive spirit exhibited by some gentlemen towards 
South Carolina. This able political economist said " that 
in taking an enlarged \'iew of our finances, of our form of 
government, and of the object of the high duties we have 
imposed, we must be convinced that, whether wise or un- 
wise, right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional, the 
benefits or injuries of high protecting duties cannot be com- 
mon to all the States, and that we must return to imposts 
for revenue or abandon all hope of preserving the Union in 
harmony and prosperity," * He averred that it was easy to 
avert the threatened calamities and put an end to the de- 
bates about secession and convention by revising the revenue 
laws with amity and justice and by adhering to the spirit 
as well as to the letter of the Constitution. These were 
New York's purposes. 

Surges stated upon his own observation that the report 
of the Ways and Means Committee was an error in fixing 
1799 as the date of the beginning of cotton manufactures 



' Register of Debates, p. 1287. * Ibid., p. 1291. 

* This was in reply to Wilde. * Eegister of Debates, p. 1346. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 311 

in New England : there were factories there in 1791.^ He 
assigned as a cause of the fall in the price of cotton com- 
petition abroad. He presented a number of ^^^^^^ Begin- 
tables which showed that the profit of cotton "i"g of cotton 

_ ..__.- _^ manufactures 

manutactures m the United btates was seven in New Eng- 
per cent, in 1830, a year of light importations; ^^"*^' 
they also showed a profit of seven per cent, on woollen 
manufactures upon a capital of about $58,000,000. In the 
former about 135,000 people of all ages and both sexes were 
employed; in the latter 297,000. Various other manufac- 
tures employed not less than 232,000 annually, with $100,- 
000,000 invested in capital. Wages equal to $20,415,000 
were earned yearly. He estimated that 2,872,000 — "the 
vigor and strength of the nation," as he put it — were de- 
pendent on the system, and that their total capital was 
$312,453,848.2 But this was not the full extent of Mr. 
Burges's claim. He asserted that the system compre- 
hended every class of labor and every source of wealth. He 
dated the protective system from the 4th of July, 1789, the 
time of the passage of the first revenue act under the new 
government.^ Against this great universality of interests 
he placed the planters of rice, cotton, and tobacco, whose 
numbers he estimated at 5000, employing 335,727 slaves; 
and only a fraction of these, he said, demanded entire 
abolition of the great national system of encouragement 
and protection. This system had enhanced the value of 
slaves from twenty to fifty per cent. The estimated value 
of the slaves was $100,718,100. The Treasury reports of 
1830 showed that the product of the three Southern staples 
exported was $37,248,072; including sales in the domestic 
market, $48,000,000. The capital of the planters was 
$139,336,705. Against this he set up $678,453,848, the 
capital of free white labor.* Congress, he contended, dared 
not enact the bill, and he suggested to the planter that if 
the product of South Carolina slavery was reduced in price 

» Register of Debates, p. 1361. ^ Ibid., p. 1374. 

3 Ibid., p. 1384. * Ibid., p. 1388. 



312 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

the master should diminish the task of the slave, spare the 
lash, reduce the quantity of cotton raised, and employ the 
slave labor in some other vocation. " Raise monuments," 
was his supercilious advice, " or after-generations may not 
know that you have existed. Let the little tyrants of 
these days . . . build pyramids of bricks and no longer 
toil to scale the highest heavens on bales of cotton." ^ The 
proposed abolition of the system of protection " was a 
horror, an outrage on reason, on morals, on liberty, on 
the Constitution itself;" and he declared that if it should 
be effected, " a people now the guardians of the world's 
freedom shall then be made the miserable panders of 
profit to the insatiable avarice of a base and vulgar des- 
potism." ^ 

The House debated a resolution offered by Appleton, 
directing the Secretary of the Treasury to communicate data 
Appieton's ^ *^^^^ body by which, taking an average of the 
resolution. importations for the last six years as a probable 
criterion of the ordinary importations for some years to 
come, the revenue from the customs at the rates of duty 
payable after the 3d of March next may be established at 
$18,000,000 annually; also how far the duties payable after 
the 3d of March next fall short of or exceed the amount 
which would have been payable if the bill transmitted by the 
Secretary on the 27th of April last had become a law. Ap- 
pleton himself could make the amount under the last year's 
bill only fifteen millions, whereas the Secretary had esti- 
mated it to be eighteen millions.^ The resolu- 
tion was agreed to.^ Howard, of Maryland, M^ho 
favored the bill before the House, also advocated the passage 
of the Force bill, and said that that was the view of Southern 
members generally, in which he differed with Wilde. He 
contended that there was no philosophy in taxing such rival 
interests as wool and the woollen manufacturers. In the 
course of an elegant speech, partly defensive of his action 

» Register of Debates, p. 1385. ' Ibid., p. 1389. 

» Ibid., p. 1413. * Ibid., p. 1434. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 183S. 313 

as an anti-tariff man in voting for the bill of 1832, W. 
B. Shepard, of N'ortli Carolina, admitted as true Clioate's 
statement that the Southern people in propor- shepard-a 
tion to their wealth and population were non- admission. 
consumers. He did not agree with McDuffie that the 
legislation of the country was hostile to the South.' 

On another day Pearce, of Ehode Island, bringing up the 
subject of the profitableness of manufacturing in New Eng- 
land, had read a statement showing that a fac- 

. 1 1 1 r" Pearce on New 

tory at Scituate, m that State, had lost from 1806 England man- 
to 1821 1144,000, and if there was a profit after- "f^^'^^^^- 
wards of five per cent., as stated by the other side on the 
authority of one of the partners, the total loss was still 
$85,000.^ He claimed that Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 
the largest manufacturing States in the Union, owning more 
than half of the manufactories in the country, had lost more 
than they had made. 

On the 31st of January ex-President Adams averred that 
a motion by Wilde to reconsider the reference to the "Ways 
and Means Committee of a memorial from Mas- 

1 • r- 1 /• 1 Ml • January 31. 

sachusetts aslang lor the passage ol a bill m Mr. Adams's 
accordance with certain suggestions was an in- sensitiveness. 
suit to that State.' The discussion of this matter was very 
bitter, and the motion was opposed by many Southerners. 
It was withdrawn on February 2.* Almost every speaker 
during the debates on the tariff reduction bill, who advocated 
a continuance of the status qtio^ insisted that the Union would 
be virtually destroyed by yielding to the demands of South 
Carolina. By a vote of sixty-nine to sixty-four it was re- 
solved to strike out the duties on tea and coffee. Another 
amendment providing for the gradual reduction of duties 
on wool, blankets, flannel, carpets, etc., and on cotton manu- 



^ Register of Debates, p. 1442. 

' Ibid., p. 1509. He dates the beginning of cotton manufacturing in 
Rhode Island in 1790. Ibid., p. 1511. 

* Ibid., pp. 1522-1529, 1564. He so far modified the expression the next 
day as to make it apply to the adoption of such a motion by the House. 

*Ibid., p. 1578, 



314 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

factures, was debated for several days.^ The discussion on 
the 2d of February in the end was rather favorable for the 
high tariff men, although it began with an ex- 
posure by Cambreleng of the uselessness of the 
tariff in the item of protection to cotton goods after forty 
years' trial.^ On the 4th of February Ward, of I:^ew York, 
a decided protectionist, declared, as others had 
done in less positive terms, that it was an abuse 
of the protective principle to apply it to raise a revenue 
which was not needed, and that the evidence was written on 
every heart that the country was on the brink of an awful 
precipice.^ Adams, of Massachusetts, changing his position 
since 1830, when he reprobated in his diary Webster's doc- 
trine of the oneness of the people of the United States, and 
especially his denial that there was a constitutional compact, 
used the following language : " It [the Constitution] had 
been the act of the people collected in separate communities, 
but forming one people, whose sanction alone gave to the 
Constitution all its power." He said that the interests of 
one portion of the community could often be protected only 
at the expense of some other portion of it. But the repre- 
sentation of slave property was a compensation under the laws. 
He would not agree to it if it were to be made again. He also 
contended that other provisions of the Constitution, as the 
rendition of fugitive slaves and the guarantee against domestic 
violence, were especially in favor of the slave States. The ex- 
President mooted the question whether South Carolina had a 
republican government.^ The six thousand soldiers of the 
regular army were employed in protecting the slave-owners 
and the Indian border. The legitimate consequences, he 
said, of the abandonment of the protective tariff were the 
dissolution of the army and navy and the return to govern- 
ment by the States.^ Drayton, an ex-Federalist and one of 
the Union party leaders in South Carolina, replied -with 
great warmth to Mr. Adams, whom he charged with intro- 

^ Register of Debates, p. 1575, et scq. ^ Ibid., pp. 1579-1584. 

' Ibid., p. 1592. " Ibid., p. 1614. * Ibid., p. 1615. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 315 

ducing topics that must inevitably excite hostile and even 
furious passions. He condemned Adams's positions as worse 
than nullification itself. Adams " had thrown a firebrand 
into that hall." In replying to what the latter had said of 
protection to the South in the Constitution, Drayton re- 
marked : "In the second section of the first article of the 
Constitution a representation in Congress is Drayton replies 
granted to the Southern States for three-fifths to Adams. 
of their slaves, and as. an equivalent for this concession they 
are liable to the payment of direct taxes in a ratio appor- 
tioned to that representation. . . . As the South obtained 
a larger representation than their free population entitled 
them to, in return they were bound to discharge a pro- 
portionably greater share of direct taxation. These were 
the conditions of the compact. They were fairly and 
voluntarily entered into; they were considered to be ex- 
pedient when they were ratified, and at this day none of the 
contracting parties have a right to complain of them. As 
to the other species of protection, it was more nominal than 
real ; the Southern States place no reliance upon it." ^ Pat- 
ton, of Virginia, replied to the constitutional argument ad- 
vanced by Mr. Adams, and urged the passage of the bill or 
some other action to tranquillize the country. 

The committee of the whole rejected Adams's motion to 
strike out the enacting clause and various amendments re- 
ducing the amount of reported reduction on cotton goods, 
iron, and other articles. White's amendment was carried 
by the casting vote of the Chair. It fixed the duty on cot- 
tons first at thirty, then at thirty-five per cent., ^^^^.es 
leaving it permanent after 1836 at twenty per amendment. 
cent.^ The whole section relating to silks was stricken out. 
The most important of the amendments adopted on the 6th 
of February were Evans's setting the same rate of paper 
duty, and Denny's the same duty on cut glass as in 1824, 
and Ashley's to restore on lead the duty of 1828.^ An 
amendment by Beardsley giving forty per cent, on wool 

» Register of Debates, p. 1619. ^ Ibid., p. 1634. ^ n^j^j^ p 1535^ 



316 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

until 1834; then thirty-five per cent, until 1835; thirty per 
cent, until 1836 ; and twenty-five per cent, permanent duty, 

was adopted. Many propositions were rejected. 

The Yerplanck bill was reported to the House 
on the 7th of February.^ 

The Force bill was reported by Bell from the Judiciary 
Committee of the House on the succeeding day. The report 

was opposed by several of the members of the 

FebraaryS. f'^ ^ i it i i • 

The Force BUI committcc, some ot whom had agreed that it 
reported. should be madc.^ On the same day the tariif 

bill was considered seriatim in the House. After consider- 
able debate Root's amendment to stop the reduction on 
wool at thirty per cent, was carried. The provision of the 
bill as amended stood : on wool worth eight cents a pound 
and on woollen twist and yarn four cents specific and forty 
per cent, ad valorem until March 2, 1834, then three cents 
and thirty-five percent, until 1835, and two cents and thirty 
per cent, permanent. The vote on the adoption of the 
amendment of the committee as amended by Root was 
ninety-seven to eighty-eight.^ 

The Collection or Force bill was considered for several 

days on the same day with the tarifi' measure. The motion 

made on the 11th of February to table the latter 

February 11. . . . 

was negatived by a decisive vote, but even then 
it was evident that such divisions existed as would preclude 
its passage. Drayton proposed to recommit it with in- 
structions to report a bill continuing the act of 1832 until 
March 2, 1834, and then to reduce the duties one-third; 
,, • .« Wickliffe, to continue the bill of 1832 until 

Various tanfE ' 

propositions March 2, 1834, and thereafter to reduce the 
prove a or ive. ^^^^^g ^^ sMcb. manner that by 1840 they should 
have reached twenty per cent., the reduction equally dis- 
tributed through the intervening years; Irwin, by amend- 
ment of Drayton's resolution, to reduce ten per cent, annu- 
ally after 1834 until the revenue should be reduced to the 

^ Register of Debates, p. 1653. ' Ibid. 

8 Ibid., p. 1664. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 317 

wants of the government; "Wardwell, to reduce annually 
five per cent, until the duties reached twenty per centum.^ 
Drayton modified his plan so as to embrace some of Ward- 
well's. The various propositions just stated were rejected or 
withdrawn. A motion to table the bill was lost ^^^^^^ ^g 
on the 18th of February. Changes in the report sundry 
of the Committee of the Wliole were made in ^ ^°^^^' 
ready-made clothing, leaving the article as in 1828, and 
raw cotton, which had been placed at two cents a pound by 
the Committee of the "Whole, and which was stricken out 
by a bare majority,^ The debate on the latter motion was 
long and full of recrimination. The Southern men who 
vdshed to strike out the duty were Alexander, Archer, 
Barnwell, Bell, Clayton, T. H. Hall, Lamar, Mardis, Pat- 
ton, Polk, Roane, Spaight, Wayne, and Wilde, who voted 
with John Davis, Dearborn, Dickson, Ellsworth, Horace 
Everett, Gilmore, protectionists, and a few administration 
men who were intermediate between the two schools. A 
majority of the Southerners and low-tariff men had voted 
for reconsideration, along with some of the most stalwart 
of the protectionists. Stewart asked, " Why this fluttering ?" 
and said he was glad to see the war carried south of the 
Potomac.^ But both schools were divided on this question. 
The Force bill, although reported by an apparent ma- 
jority, was favored, it was intimated, by only two members 
of the Judiciary Committee. Its chairman, Mr. 

Ti -11 1- '^'^^ House Ju- 

Bell, or Tennessee, did not wish that the impres- diciary com- 
sion should prevail that the House sanctioned ^'"J^^^ ^'"^^J 
the measure, and therefore opposed the motion bin reported by 
to print twenty-five thousand copies, which, 
however, prevailed.* The report accompanying the bill 
contained a very remarkable passage : " When, therefore, a 
law is made by the government so oppressive and destructive 
of the interests of the people of one of the States as to de- 

* Register of Debates, 1681. 

^ The vote was eighty to eighty-one on the proposition to concur with 
the committee. Register of Debates, p. 1755. 

3 Ibid., p. 1751. * Ibid., pp. 1676, 1682-1685. 



S18 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

termine them to resist it at every hazard, it is evidence of 
the justice of their complaint, which should not be disre- 
garded ; and it is the bounden duty of the legislature, in- 
stead of devising vigorous measures to enforce it, to modify 
the obnoxious law." It was denied that this language was 
intended to defend the doctrine of nullification, or to pro- 
tect those who advocated it ; but Stewart contended that a 
re-reading of the document had only confirmed his previous 
impression that it contained the essence of nullification, 
the essence of anti-tariffism, and the very quintessence of 
anti-Jacksonism." ^ 

Pending some of these events the Presidential count 
occurred. 

On the 21st of February the tea and coffee duties in the 
Verplanck bill were stricken out. In the early part of this 
February 21. day a debate had occurred as to which measure, 
Tea and cofiee. ^|^g Force bill having been received from the 
Senate, should occupy the attention of the House. The 
low-tariff men had wished to go on with the consideration 
of the tariff bill, the others to take up the Force measure. 
The former motion prevailed. There was, however, during 
the debate considerable filibustering,^ In speaking upon his 
resolution calling on the President to communicate what- 
ever evidence he might have authorizing the belief that the 
government and people of South Carolina meditated the 
seizure of the forts or other property belonging to the 
United States, Davis, of that State, met the charge with a 
flat denial. Wayne said that there was already sufficient 
excitement, without an addition to it in the House, and 
saw nothing in the recent orders wliich differed from the 
attitude in which South Carolina had placed herself by her 
ordinance and her subsequent laws in pursuance of that 
ordinance. He therefore moved to table the motion, and 
his motion was adopted by a vote of one hundred and nine 
to fifty-seven.^ 

1 Register of Debates, p. 1684. ' Ibid., pp. 1758-1762. 

=> Ibid., p. 1764. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 319 

On tiiis day a fiery debate occurred on the disposition to 
be made of the Enforcement bill. Motions to postpone to 
various days and to refer to the Committee of the "Whole 
were made by the enemies of the measure. 

.,-,, .,., , , Fiery debate on 

The Chair decided that it did not under the the reference of 
rules have to go to the Committee of the Whole. "^^ ^"'"'^^ ^^"• 
The bill was denounced as more despotic than the Alien 
and Sedition laws.^ Chairman Bell did not think it was 
fraught with the danger gentlemen apprehended. Some 
of the friends of the South Carolinians averred that if the 
House would pass a measure of reconciliation there would 
be no need for the pending or any other measure of en- 
forcement. Wayne defended the bill, but he said that the 
time had arrived when men should act together for a 
common object, — to have the tariff reduced and the 
country pacified. It was immaterial which measure had 
precedence. His remarks were partly on one side and 
partly on the other.^ The South Carolinians had been 
silent on these measures, but at this point warrenR. 
Warren R. Davis arose and observed that the Mavis's speech. 
House would do himself and his colleagues the justice to 
own that they were in no way responsible for the delays 
that had occurred. "You have all witnessed," he con- 
tinued, " that we submitted in silence to the reading and 
discussion of public documents containing false, malicious, 
and defamatory libels on the State and people of South 
Carohna . . . that shot like fiery arrows through our 
veins. . . . We remained in our places, we kept our seats 
and bore the torture." He asked Bell, as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, if it was the intention of the party 
with which he acted to give precedence to the bill for col- 
lecting revenue. Bell replied that he would answer the 
question in the same spirit of candor in which it was asked : 
It was desired to have the measure passed as soon as prac- 
ticable, and for that purpose to give it precedence. " Then," 
said Davis, " we understand it now. The President is im- 

1 Register of Debates, p. 1766. * Ibid., p. 1768. 



320 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

patient to wreak his vengeance on South Carolina. Be it 
so. Pass your measure, sir ; unchain your tiger ; let loose 
your war-dogs as soon as you please. I know the people 
you desire to war on. They await you with unflinching, 
unshrinking, unblenching firmness. I know full well the 
State you strike at. She is deeply enshrined in as warm 
affections, brave hearts, and high minds as ever formed a 
living rampart for public liberty." He proceeded in the 
same fiery spirit to declare that the people of South Carolina 
would receive the bill, whether passed or not, " with scorn 
and indignation and detestation. They will never submit 
to it. They will see in it the iron crown of Charlemagne 
placed upon the head of your Executive ; they will see in it 
the scene upon the Lupercal, vamped up and newly var- 
nished ; they mil see in its hideous features of pains and 
penalties a declaration of war in all but its form ; they 
cannot, for they are the best informed people upon the face 
of the earth or that ever have been on it on the great prin- 
ciples of civil and political liberty, but see in it the utter 
prostration and demolition of State rights, State constitu- 
tions, and of the Federal Constitution, too. . . . Peace, is 
it ? Shame ! Shame ! You pour fire and brimstone on 
our heads, and bid us, in the language of a departed friend, 
'Be quiet; it is Macassar oil — myrrh, frankincense!' You 
collect taxes at the point of the bayonet, and call it civil 
process." He denounced protection, but exempted South 
Carolina from the charge of having mercenary motives. 
" What does her bright and glorious history tell you ? To 
coin her heart for money ; to drop her blood for drachms ? 
. . . Why arm the President with powers so dangerous to 
peace and freedom, and in the face of recorded refusal by 
your predecessors to give the pacific ci\dlian, the mild, 
virtuous, humane Jefferson, the much lesser power of sus- 
pending the habeas corpus act? Is this thing so coveted 
by and gratifying to the President? Is this bloody bill, 
this Boston Port bill, so delightful to him that it is to be 
preferred to that which is said to be pacificatory ? Why, 
sir, if he must be gratified, must be amused, buy him a tee- 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 321 

to-tum, or some other harmless toy, but do not give him 
the purse and sword of the nation, the army and navy, 
and the whole military power of the country as peaceful 
playthings to be used at his discretion." He concluded 
his speech wdth the message sent from Utica to Csesar: 
"Bid him disband his legions," etc. "That, sir, is her 
answer." ^ After further discussion McDuffie prudently 
appealed to the judgment of the House w^hether good re- 
sults could possibly proceed from the debate. On the same 
day the House took up the tariff bill, having postponed 
the other until the day following.^ Letcher, of Kentucky, 
a friend of Mr. Clay, rose immediately and moved to strike 
out all after the enacting clause and insert another bill in 
lieu thereof. This was Clay's measure. Objec- Letci^gj. ^^^^^ 
tion having been made, the House went into du«es ciay's 
committee of the whole and Letcher's motion House as a sub- 
was there agreed to and the bill was reported to ^*^'^"'^®- 
the House.^ The protectionists of the straightest sect op- 
posed these proceedings, except the friends of Mr. Clay, who 
were now prepared to co-operate Avith the low-tariff men 
and the Southern enemies of the President. One ground 
of opposition to the bill at the time of its introduction was 
that the third section which provided for the assessment of 
values of goods at the port of entry conflicted with the pro- 
vision of the Constitution that " all duties shall be uni- 
form." ^ Davis, of Massachusetts, expressed surprise at the 
suddenness of the movement, which he spoke of as " this 
arrangement," and declared that the bill would place the 
country under the guardianship of the Carolina system. He 
said that the bill favored great at the expense of large capi- 
tal ; that it abandoned the right to discriminate.* At the 
close of the period South Carolina, having stood by the 
compromise when she supposed it was beneficial to the tariff 
States, would say, "You have no right to change this law; 

» Register of Debates, p. 1770. ^ Ibid., p. 1772. » Ibid. 

* The same argument was used in the Senate discussion. On the next 
day, however, Foster, who advanced it, admitted he was mi6tal<:en. Reg- 
ister of Debates, pp. 1773-1791. ^ Ibid., p. 1775. 

21 



322 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

it was founded on compromise ; you have the benefits of 
your side of the bargain, and now I demand mine." Horace 
Everett had not expected the blow would fall on the manu- 
facturers from the quarter from which it fell. There would 
be in 1842 a deficiency of revenue. How would it be sup- 
plied ? Dickson also opposed the measure. Letcher replied 
to these speeches. By a vote of one hundred and five to 
seventy-one the bill was ordered to be engrossed.^ In the 
discussion upon this bill, on the 26th of February, Clay was 
hotly assailed by the more zealous protectionists and as 
warmly defended by others. He was accused of having be- 
trayed the protection party and the IS'orth " under a great 
political arrangement." The charge was denounced as 
calumnious, and his act was eulogized in the loftiest terms.' 
The speakers exhibited great zeal and heat on both sides. 
Stewart, who opposed all legislation upon the tariff at that 
time, claimed that the South demanded the sacrifice of the 
whole Northern people. It was time, he said, to stop and 
tell these gentlemen plainly that we will go no farther, and 
to play out their game of nullification and civil war if they 
dared. And he predicted, with slight knowledge of the 
situation there, that the Union men in South Carolina would 
be able to put down the nullifiers ^vith little or no aid from 
the federal government.^ At last McDuffie declared that 
the South had a right to demand more, but he had never- 
theless made up his mind to vote for the bill. He believed 
that the measure would give quiet to the country, and for 
that reason he should support it. Bates, of Massachusetts, 
in giving his grounds of objection to the bill, said he had 
no fear that the South would not abide by it. The previous 

question was carried by one hundred and nine to 
SsSrS the eighty-five. The vote in the House on the final 
Compromise passage of the Compromise tariff measure was, 

yeas, one hundred' and nineteen; nays, eighty- 
five,* or in full as follows : Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Chil- 



1 Register of Debates, p. 1779. "^ Ibid., p. 1790. " Ibid., p. 1802. 
* Ibid., p. 1810, vol. ix., part 2 ; H. R. Journal, p. 428. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 323 

ton Allan, Robert Allen, Anderson, Angel, Archer, Arm- 
strong, John S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, James Bates, 
Bell, Bergen, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, 
Bouck, Bouldin, Branch, John Brodhead, Bullard, Cambre- 
leng, Carr, Carson, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Coke, 
Connor, Corwin, Coulter, Craig, Creighton, Daniel, Daven- 
port, Warren R. Davis, Doubleday, Drayton, Draper, Dun- 
can, Felder, Findlay, Fitzgerald, Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, 
Gordon, Griffin, Thomas H. Hall, "William Hall, Harper, 
Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffinan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Hub- 
bard, Irvin, Isacks, Jarvis, Jenifer, Richard M. Johnson, 
Cave Johnson, Joseph Johnson, Kavanagh, Kerr, Lamar, 
Lansing, Lecompte, Letcher, Le\vis, Lyon, Mardis, Mason, 
Marshall, Maxwell, William McCoy, McDuffie, McLitire, 
McKay, Mitchell, ISTewnan, Newton, Nuckolls, Patton, Plum- 
mer, Polk, Rencher, Roane, Root, Semmes, Sewall, William 
B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Smith, Spaight, 
Spence, Stanbery, Standefer, Francis Thomas, Philemon 
Thomas, Wiley Thompson, John Thomson, Tompkins, 
Yerplanck, Ward, Washington, Wayne, Weeks, Elisha 
Whittlesey, Campbell P. White, Edward D. White, Wick- 
liffe, Williams, Worthington. The nays were Adams, 
Heman Allen, Allison, Appleton, Arnold, Ashley, Babcock, 
Banks, Barber, Barstow, Isaac C. Bates, Beardsley, Briggs, 
John C. Brodhead, Bucher, Burd, Burgess, Cahoon, 
Chandler, Choate, Collier, Condict, Condit, Eleutheros 
Cooke, Bates Cooke, Cooper, Crane, Crawford, John Davis, 
Dayan, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart, Dickson, Ellsworth, 
George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace 
Everett, Ford, Grennell, Hiland Hall, Heister, Hodges, 
Hogan, Hughes, Huntington, Birie, LigersoU, Kendall, 
Kennon, Adam King, John King, Henry King, Leavitt, 
Mann, Macarty, Robert McCoy, McKennan, Mercer, Milli- 
gan, Muhlenberg, Nelson, Pearce, Pendleton, Pierson, 
Pitcher, Potts, Randolph, John Reed, Edward C. Reed, 
Russel, Slade, Southard, Stephens, Storrs, Sutherland, Tay- 
lor, Vinton, Wardwell, Watmough, Wilkin, Wheeler, 
Frederick Whittlesey, Young. 



324 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

On tbe 27th of February the House bill, which was 

identical with his own, was reported without amendment 

February 27 ^^ ^^^^ Senate on motion of Mr. Clay, and was 

March 1. ordered to its third reading. It was put upon 

its passage on Friday the 1st of March, and debated at 

length. Robbins said that the bill considered the protective 

policy as a great State criminal condemned to die, but whose 

sentence was respited a few days to give him time to arrange 

his affairs. He supposed that the bill would 

The bill on its i t p i i tc • ^ 

final passage in pass, and he lurthcr averrcd, " it it does pass, 
the Senate. ^^ j^^y. gj^Q^her the fire now raging in one 
place, but I fear it will preserve the embers that one day 
will consume the fabric of the Union." ^ Calhoun observed 
that to some details of the measure he still had objection, — 
among them the slowness of the reduction in the first part 
of the series and in the last the rapidity, and the home 
valuation. But these objections were overweighed by the 
fact that the bill provided as a final result a reduction to the 
just and economical wants of the government. He had 
but little faith in pledges, about which a good deal had been 
said. He had experience enough to know that even the 
Constitution itself would be violated whenever the domi- 
nant party saw its advantage in such violation. His reli- 
ance, he declared, was in the circumstances under 
liance in the which the bill was about to pass. He had no 
circumstances f^^j. ^^^q^ ^y^j qj^q -would try to rc-cstablish the 

under which . . 

the bill was protective system with the present experience 
o pass. |^g|>Qj.g j^^g QjQQ^ ]3i2t while he believed that as 
far as this subject was concerned peace and harmony would 
follow, there was another measure connected with it which 
would prevent the return of quiet. Calhoun proceeded to 
say that he considered the Force bill as " a virtual repeal 
of the Constitution." He trusted that the advocates of lib- 
erty everywhere, as well in the North as the South, would 
rally against this attempt to establish by law doctrines which 
must subvert the principles on which free institutions could 

* Register of Debates, p. 791. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 325 

be maintained.^ Frelinghuysen, expressing his belief in the 
policy of protection as an abstract question, declared that 
this was not an abstract but a practical question of deep and 
most eventful moment. Nullification was only one of many 
forms of discontent. The bill was a great peace offering. 
Dallas was averse to all legislative arrangements which com- 
promised or abandoned certain great principles. He drew 
a sad picture of the condition of Pennsylvania in the event 
the bill should pass. Dallas appeared illogical in saying 
that the measure would abandon protection, and yet the 
nullifiers in supporting it would give up their anti-protective 
principles.^ But he expressed his gratification at the thought 
that the bill would pacify the country. Ewing declared that 
if it yielded the principle of protection no consideration 
could induce him to assent to it. But, on the whole, he felt 
confident that the industry of the country would be more 
safe in 1842, under the provisions of the bill, than it would 
in 1834 if the bill should not become a law.^ Mangum 
and Clayton spoke for and Webster against the measure. 
"Webster said that he stood before the country 

I'll! Webster op- 

on the proposition that everything which had poses the bin 
been found valuable in the protective system was ^ ^^^ ^^^' 
abandoned by the bill. Frelinghuysen averred that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts had not dealt fairly with his 
argument ; the question was, Will we have the preunghuysen 
tariff, or have the Union? "Whenever," he presents the 

. , . , 1 1 p 1 • T issue : tariff or 

continued, " it comes to that dreadiui issue,! union, and pre- 
take the Union." ^ After speeches by Silsbee, f^^ the latter. 
Clayton, Forsyth, Sprague, Holmes, and Wright, Clay con- 
cluded the discussion. Among his last utterances were 
these : " Save the country — save the Union — 
and save the American system." ^ The vote on days com- 
the passage of the bill was : Yeas— Bell, Bibb, P^^g^f^jf^Wy 
Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Ew- 
ing, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hill, Holmes, 



1 Register of Debates, p. 792. ' Ibid., p. 795. ' Ibid., p. 799. 

♦Ibid., p. 802. ^xbid., p. 808. 



326 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

Jolmston, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, ITaudain, Poin- 
dexter, Rives, Robinson, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wag- 
gaman, Wliite, and Wright, twenty-nine; nays — Benton, 
Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Hendricks, Knight, 
Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Tip- 
ton, Webster, and Wilkins, sixteen.^ The great Compro- 
mise Measure of 1833 was signed by the President, who was 
thus far wiser than his supporters in the Congress.^ 

While these events were taking place in the Congress the 

State rights party in the Virginia Legislature were maturing 

a plan of action by which harmony could be 

Virginia ar- ^ ^ _ "^ 

ranges for preserved on a basis honorable alike to all the 
peace. participants in the controversy. It was a deli- 

cate task to which they set themselves. If they should 
overstep ever so little the bounds of modesty and prudence, 
it was sure that they would fail, and the failure might make 
it worse for South Carolina. But they must not approve 
her course. That far all was clear. It only remained to 
convey disapprobation in such a friendly and dignified man- 
ner as to induce the nullifiera to pause and consider any 
measure of conciliation which might be adopted by the 
Federal government. Resolutions directed to the existing 
condition of affairs and reaffirming the ancient 

January 26. . . . " -, -mt 

doctrnie ot Virginia were adopted, and Mr. 
Benjamin Watkins Leigh was empowered to act as a com- 
missioner of the State of Virginia to the State of South 
Carolina. Mr. Leigh proceeded to Charleston and entered 
upon a correspondence with the Governor. Virginia, in the 
resolutions adopted by the Legislature, had asked that South 
Carolina, in the interests of peace and union, should rescind 

^ Register of Debates, p. 809 ; also Senate Journal, p. 224. Besides paci- 
fying the country on this eventful occasion. Clay brought about the res- 
toration of friendship between Webster and Poindexter. 

^ March 2. Von Hoist, in his "Life of Calhoun" (Statesman's Series, 
p. 106) says that if either party had a right to claim the victory, it was 
certainly not Jackson and the majority of Congress, but Calhoun and 
South Carolina. Lodge, in his " Life of Webster" (same series), takes a 
broader view : " South Carolina had in reality prevailed, although Mr. 
Clay had saved protection in a modified form." Page 219. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 327 

or at least suspend her ordinance of nullification. Her 
commissioner presented her views, and in his latest communi- 
cation even assumed that the recent act of Congress — Mr. 
Clay's compromise measure — provided such a modification 
of the tariiF as left very little doubt of the 
course South Carolina would pursue.^ The re- ^ "^^^^ 
suit of the correspondence was a call from President Ham- 
ilton for the reassembling of the convention. The call was 
issued on the 13th of February, and the body March ii The 
convened on the 11th of March following. As second session 

, , 1 • . /T» T mi of the conven- 

at the previous session, prayer was oiiered. The tion in south 
presidency was resigned by Hamilton and ac- Carolina, 
cepted by Hayne. Two new ordinances were adopted. 
One was a harmless expression of the public feeling on the 
repressive legislation of the Congress : it nullified the Force 
bill.^ The other declared, " "Whereas, the Con- 
gress of the United States by an act recently 
passed has provided for such a reduction and modification 
of the duties upon foreign imports as will ultimately 
reduce them to the revenue standard, and pro- 
vides that no more revenue shall be raised than of Nullification 
may be necessary to defray the economical '■^^^"^<^^'^- 
expenses of the government, it is therefore ordained and de- 
clared that the ordinance adopted by this convention on the 
24th of November last entitled" (here the title is set forth) 
" be henceforth deemed and held to have no effect." But 
it was provided that the militia act of December 20, 1832, 
should remain in force until repealed or modified by the 
Legislature. The convention made an amicable response to 
the Virginia resolutions, but took issue with their framers 
on the propriety and justice of South Carolina's conduct 
and on the deductions that State had made from the Vir- 
ginia resolutions of 1798 and the report of 1799.^ 



^ Dated. March 11, and addressed to the convention. 
^ The rescinding ordinance was the first in the order of time. 
' For the above, see "Official Proceedings," Columbia, 1833. The ex- 
citement in South Carolina abated after the terms of the Compromise 



328 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

After the passage of the Compromise bill consideration 

of the Force bill was resumed; but the House was in such 

disorder that no business could be transacted. 

after the pas- McDuffic's voicc was heard in the din declaring 

sage of the Com- j-^^r^^ jf p-entlemeu would hear the opponents of 

promise bill. '^ -^ -^ , 

the measure he was ready to meet them, but if 
not and if he could get forty men to stand by him he would 
continue to move for adjournment and call for the yeas and 
nays until the end of the session.^ Several members re- 
sponded that they would support him. In vain the Speaker 
called for order. Bell arose to speak, but he could not be 
heard. While he was on the floor McDuifie moved several 
times to adjourn. The Speaker decided that these motions 

were out of order, as a member occupied the 

floor. This uproar, than which nothing surpass- 
ing it had ever taken place in the hall of Representatives, 
lasted until the hour of the evening recess.^ 

Adams's report on the President's message, which had 
been referred to the Committee on Manufactures, was pre- 
sented on the 27th of February."* This elaborate document 
assails the President's declaration that the independent 

farmers were the basis of society ; it attacks the 
Adams'7report institution of slavcry and the seven slave States 
on the Presi- -^th great bittcrness : it inveighs against the 

dent's message. , , r , . t • t^ f n 

land, mternal improvement, and tarin policy ot 
the Jackson administration. In regard to the President's 
tarifi" principle limiting protection to articles useful in war, 
his predecessor remarked that it was " incorrect, unjust, and 
unconstitutional." He thought that gradual reduction of 
protection to manufactures was exceptionable, the more 
because it countenanced the action of South Carolina. The 
subscribers to the report express surprise at the tone of the 



were made known. The Convention adjourned on the 18th of March, 
after a session of eight days. 

* The modern name of these obstructive tactics is "filibustering ;" the 
number of such motions is now hmited by rules first adopted in the 
Forty-seventh Congress, and made more rigid in the Fiftj^-first Congress. 

* Register of Debates, p. 1812. * Ibid., p. 1817, and Appendix, p. 4. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 329 

message issued ten days after the South Carolina ordinance, 
in which message they asserted that the condition of things 
was described in terms inadequate to the real magnitude 
of the crisis. *' Only six days after the delivery of this mes- 
sage the proclamation emanating from the same source was 
published to the world, founded, as it appears on its face, 
upon the ordinance alone, which had thus been in the Presi- 
dent's possession before the message was sent to Congress." 
The writer of the report says further that an expectation was 
entertained at the Executive mansion that on the receipt of 
the message in South Carolina the nullification convention 
would abrogate the ordinance immediately. He commends 
the proclamation, and condemns nullification and secession 
as absurd doctrines. It was held that the reduction of the 
revenue was not incompatible \vith the principle of protec- 
tion. But it was contended that no reduction was then 
needed.^ 

On the resumption of the Force bill discussion, McDufiie 
said that the measure passed the day before wou>d be re- 
garded in South Carolina as an olive-branch, McDuffieand 
but this statement was contradicted by Blair, ^^^^^- 
one of the Union leaders.^ Clayton, of Georgia, wanted no 
finger-board attached to a compromise bill, pointing to a 
threat if it were not accepted. Carson, of Mr. Macon. 
North Carolina, quoted from a letter received Coercion. 
from Mr. Macon, in which the aged statesman deprecated 
the employment of force in the pending difficulties, and 
gave the opinion that secession was the rightful remedy. 
He also cited the authority of John Eandolph. The dis- 
cussion ran into the evening session, and was picturesque 
in both its serious and comic aspects. One Southern 
speaker said, mockingly, that on the morning Mock prognos- 
the President's proclamation appeared in the *^^- 
Senate no prayers had been uttered, and that one of the 
thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original States, in 
the Virginia Capitol fell on the day that that grave body 

^ Register of Debates, Appendix, p. 60. * Ibid., p. 1819. 



330 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

was discussing federal relations. He also read quaint extracts 
from Lord Somers, relating to Dutch prognostics in 1660- 
61.^ General Jackson was declared to be an improper 
person to entrust with absolute power. A free-born South 
Carolinian was depicted as prone on the ground, and the 
President standing ready to plunge a dagger into the free- 
man's heart. James Blair, on the other side, said that he 
should regard the rejection of the bill as a negative sanction 
of nullification, and an indirect rebuke of the Union party 
of South Carolina. " We ask not personal protection," 
were his words; " we would auifer annihilation before we 
would invoke aid in that respect." The bill might increase 
the anger and hostility of their opponents. He denounced 
secession as well as nullification, and praised Jackson's 
character, services, and patriotism.^ The debate lasted 
through both sessions on the 28th of February. Foster 
pointed out the inequality and injustice of the proposed law 
as regarded those merchants of Charleston who had no in- 
tention of taking advantage of the South Carolina laws to 
sident'8 ^^^^^ payment of duties, and Daniel made an 
former posi- important statement respecting the President's 
former position on nullification. He said that 
at the time of Hayne's speeches in the Senate on this doctrine 
both the President and Senator Grundy had approved the 
position of South Carolina as enunciated by her Senator. 
In a letter addressed to Mr. Hayne, the former had ex- 
pressed himself in terms strong as language could aftbrd. 
Bell enquired if he had personal knowledge of the Presi- 
dent's approval of those principles and of his commendation 
of Mr. Hayne's speech. Before the Kentucky member 
could reply, Carson arose, and with much earnestness 
averred : " I from my personal knowledge can declare that 
such is the fact. The President expressed his approbation 
of that speech to me in person." Daniel resumed his re- 
marks. Wliat he knew of the President's opinions on this 
subject was from documents emanating from the President's 

^ Register of Debates, p. 1832. ' Ibid., p. 1860. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1833. 331 

own pen, from the various statements of gentlemen whose 
veracity could not be impeached, and from corroborating 
circumstances. Daniel fixed partial responsibility for the 
condition of things in South Carolina upon the Union party 
itself, including Blair, with whom he was arguing the 
question, alleging truthfully that they had done much to 
produce the excited feeling there by their violent denuncia- 
tions of the unconstitutionality of the tarifii". ^ 

This was the final debate on the measure. The previous 
question was demanded by Craig, a Virginian, on which the 
nullifiers and their friends, with a few of the I^orthern ene- 
mies of the President, voted no. The vote was, yeas, one 
hundred and ten ; nays, forty-four.^ The vote on ordering 
the bill to a third reading was one hundred and twenty-six 
to thirty-four. Its friends pressed the measure to a vote 
that night. The previous question was carried by one hun- 
dred and eleven to forty. The House adjourned at 1.30 
A.M. of the legislative day of February 28, which was the 
calendar day of March 1. On the succeeding legislative 
day the select committee to whom had been referred so 
much of the President's message as related to doubtful 
powers made a verbal report which stated that there was 
not a single point on which the committee could agree, and 
amidst some "jocular conversation" the committee was 
discharged.^ 

The Force or Revenue Collection bill passed by the fol- 
lowing vote : Yeas — Adams, Chilton Allen, Ileman Allen, 
Allison, Anderson, Appleton, Armstrong, Ash- passage of the 
ley. Banks, Noyes Barber, Barringer, Barstow, Force bin. 
Isaac C. Bates, James Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Be- 
thune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, Briggs, John 
Brodhead, John C. Brodhead, Bucher, Bullard, Burd, Bur- 
ges, Cahoon, Cambreleng, Carr, Chandler, Choate, Collier, 
Eleutheros Cooke, Bates Cooke, Corwin, Craig, Crane, 
Crawford, Creighton, John Davis, Dearborn, Denny, De- 

1 Register of Debates, pp. 1876-1896. " Ibid., p. 1896. 

3 Ibid., p. 1902. 



332 A HISTORY OF THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE. 

wart, Dickson, Doubleday, Drayton, Draper, Ellsworth, 
George Evans, Josliua Evans, Edward Everett, Horace 
Everett, Findlay, Fitzgerald, Ford, Gilmore, Grennell, 
William Hall, Hiland Hall, Harper, Hawkins, Heister, 
Hodges, Hoffman, Hogan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Hub- 
bard, Huntington, Hirie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Isacks, Jarvis, 
Jenifer, Ricbard M. Johnson, Joseph Johnson, Kavanagh, 
Kendall, Adam King, John King, Henrj King, Kerr, Lan- 
sing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Letcher, Lyon, Mann, Marshall, 
Maxwell, McCarty, William McCoy, McLitire, McKay, 
McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Nel- 
son, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Pierson, Pitcher, Polk, 
Potts, Randolph, John Reed, Edward C. Reed, Russell, 
Semmes, Sewall, William B. Shepard, Augustin H. Shep- 
perd, Slade, Smith, Soule, Speight, Standefer, Stephens, 
Stewart, Sutherland, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Philemon 
Thomas, John Thomson, Tompkins, Tracy, Verplanck, 
Yinton, Ward, Wardwell, Washington, Watmough, Wayne, 
Wilkin, Elisha Whittlesey, Frederick Whittlesey, Campbell 
P. White, Edward D. White, Williams, Worthington, and 
Young, one hundred and forty-nine ; nays — Alexander, 
Robert Allen, Archer, Arnold, Babcock, John S. Barbour, 
Barnwell, Bouldin, Carson, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, 
Coke, Connor, Cooper, Coulter, Daniel, Davenport, Warren 
R. Davis, Felder, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin, Thomas 
H. Hall, Hawes, Hughes, Cave Johnson, Lamar, Lewis, 
Mardis, Mason, McDuffie, Newnan, ISTuckolls, Patton, Plum- 
mer, Rencher, Roane, Root, Stanbery, Wiley Thompson, 
Weeks, Wheeler, Wickliffe, and Wilde, forty-seven/ 

McDuffie offered an amendment to the title of the bill in 
the following words : " An act to subvert the sovereignty of 
the States of this Union, to establish a consolidated govern- 
ment -^athout limitation of powers, and to make the civil 
subordinate to the military power," It was cut off by the 
previous question and the title of the measure retained as 
it came from the Senate. The bill was returned to the 

^ Register of Debates, p. 1903 ; Journal, p. 453. 



NULLIFICATION AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1S33. 333 

other house without amendment, and was afterwards ap- 
proved by the President.^ Although galling to the pride 
T.« . . .^ of the South Carolinians, it was a dead letter 

Effect of the , ' 

^"1- when it became a law; for the Compromise had 

secured peace, and there was no more for that generation 
any place for force among the safeguards of the Union.^ 



^ March 2. The Compromise bill and the Force bill were signed on 
the same day. 

" In another volume I shall treat of the United States Bank and the 
Public Lands. These questions are deferred, along with that of Internal 
Improvements, because a great part of the events included in a discussion 
of them happened later than the date I have fixed for the present vol- 
ume's utmost limit. 



INDEX. 



Adams, John, son of John Qviincy, and 
private secretary of President, is as- 
saulted, 30 

Adams, John Quincy, Presidential candi- 
date 1824-25, 18; again, 1828; Northern 
candidate, 20, 21 ; gets two votes in Con- 
gressional nominating caucus, 22 ; Adams 
and Jackson, 24 ; elected in 1825 by House 
of Representatives, 24 ; Adams and Clay, 
25 ; decides day after election to appoint 
Clay Secretary of State and Crawford 
Secretary of the Treasury, 26 ; his in- 
augural address, 26 ; starts with majority 
in Congress, 26 ; unijopular personally, 
27 ; coalition against him, 27 ; cry of 
"bargain" in campaign of 1828, 30; 
Adams and anti-Masonic movement, 30 ; 
Adams less sanguine than Clay, 31 ; sim- 
ple and austere, 32; last of post-Revolu- 
tionary Presidents, 32 ; administration of, 
favors protection, 146 ; reports tariff bill 
of 1832, 215 ; debates it, 224 ; his resolu- 
tions requesting list of protected articles 
for reduction tabled, 307; speaks on 
Verplanck's tariff bill, 315; reports on 
President's message, 328 

Additional Bills, grouped, on subject of 
revenue, 60 ; supplementary act to act of 
1816, 71 

Alexander, of Virginia, on tariff of 1828, 
139 

American Industrial System called for, 
17 

Ames, Fisher, speaks on tariff, 39, 42, 48, 52 

Anderson, of Maine, on tariff of 1828, 129 

Anti-Masons support Adams in 1828, 31 ; 
convention of, 188, 195 

Appleton, of Massachusetts, speaks, 213, 
309, 312 ; his resolutions concerning im- 
portations adopted, 312 

Archer, of Virginia, on Baldwin tariff, 76, 
77 ; on Woollens bill, 124 ; on tariff of 
1832, 224 

Armament in nullification times, 238, 239 

Aurora champions protection, 17 

Ayes and Noes. (See for Tariff and Force 
bills those heads.) 



Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, chairman of 
Committee on Manufactures, reports 
tariff bill of 1820 and explains its pro- 
visions, 73 

Baldwin speaks on First tariff, 45 

Baldwin, tariff of, reported, 73; debated, 
73-«l ; passed House of Representatives, 
81 ; defeated in Senate, 82 

Bank, United States, note, 333 

Barbour, Philip Pendleton, on Baldwin 
tariff, 76, 77, 78; on tariff of 1824, 91, 98, 
101, 102, 103; on tariff of 1828, 139; on 
tariff of 1830, 201 

Bargain, charge against Adams and Clay 
in campaign of 1828, 30 (see Adams and 
Clay) 

Barnard on tariff of 1828, 131 

Barney on tariff of 1828, 128, 135 

Barnwell on tariff of 18.30, 205 

Bartlett on tariff of 1824, 101 

Barton, of Missouri, on Foot resolution 
(1830), 156, 184 

Bates, of Massachusetts, on tariff of 1828, 
132, 136, 138 ; on Clay's tariff, 322 

Bell, John, of Tennessee, on tariff of 1832, 
220 ; on Compromise tariff, 276 ; on Force 
bill, 319, 328 

Benton, Thomas Hart, on tariff of 1828, 
141, 143, 144; on Foot resolution (1830), 
156, 157, 163, 182, 183, 186, 187 ; unavailing 
efforts of, to reduce salt duty, 210 ; his 
reform zeal, 210 ; on compromise tariff, 
290, 293 

Bibb on Force bill, 258, 264, 265 

Black on Compromise tariff, 289 

Blair, James, of South Carolina, contra- 
dicts McDuffle on Force bill, 329, 330 

Bland, of Virginia, on tariff, 39, 42, 44, 52 

Boudinot, of New Jersey, on tariff of First 
Congress, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 
52 

Bouldin, resolutions of, 212; speaks, 217 

Breck, of Pennsylvania, on tariff of 1S24, 
100 

Brent, of Louisiana, on tariff of 1824, 92, 
93,98 

Brown, Bedford, on Force bill, 258, 260, 264 
335 



336 



INDEX. 



Brown on tariS of 1824, HI 

Bryan, of North Carolina, on Woollens 

bill, 124 ; on tariff of 1828, 133 
Buchanan, James, on tariff of 1823, 87 ; on 

Woollens bill, 124, 125 ; on tariff of 1828, 

133, 135 
BucKNER on Clay's reqviest for leave to 

introduce Compromise tariff bill, 275 
BuLLARD, of Louisiana, on tariff of 1832, 223 
BuRGES, of Rhode Island, on tariff of 1828, 

137, 138 ; on tariff of 1830, 205 ; on Uriff of 

1832, 223 ; on Verplanck tariff, 310-312 
Burke on First tariff, 43, 50, 51 
Burton on tariff of 1824, 98 
Butler appointed on special committee 

of Senate, First Congress, to consider 

tariff amendment, 53 



Cadwalader appointed on first Ways and 
Means Committee, 55 

Calhoun, John Caldwell, on tariff of 1816, 
67, 69, 70, 71 ; Presidential candidate at 
first in 1824, 18 ; withdraws in favor of 
General Jackson, 21 ; nominated for Vice- 
Presidency by Jackson meeting, 23 ; his 
friends join coalition against Adams, 27 ; 
vindicated by Congress in matter of the 
Mix contracts, 27 ; candidate of Jackson 
party for re-election to Vice- Presidency in 
1828, 29 ; elected, 31 ; gives casting vote on 
Woollens bill, 126 ; writes his exposition, 
193 ; chosen Senator, 242 ; defends South 
Carolina and attacks President, 246 ; of- 
fers three resolutions on nature of the 
general government, 250; debates them, 
250-252; debates Force bill and various 
resolutions, 254, 256, 257, 261, 263, 264, 265, 
278, 279-281, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291 ; speaks 
on Clay's request for leave to introduce 
tariff compromise, 274 ; motives of, in 
tariff compromise, 292 ; great speech on 
his own resolutions, 296-303 ; his resolu- 
tions, with others, laid on the table, 304 ; 
votes for Clay's Compromise tariff bill, 
325 

Cambreleng, Churchill C, debates tariff 
of 1823, 86 ; Woollens bill, 123 ; tariff bill 
of 1830, 201, 205 ; that of 1832, 224 ; Ver- 
planck tariff, 310, 314 

Candidates, Presidential, in 1824, 18 (see 
Adams, Calhoun, Clay, Crawford, and 
Jackson); in 1828, 29, 30 (see Adams and 
Jackson) 

Candles considered in debate of tariff of 
1789, 40 

Carson, of North Carolina, on tariff of 
1832, 223, 224 ; on Verplanck Uriff, 310 ; 
on Force bill, 329, 330 



Caucus, the Congressional, for Presidential i 
nominations, opjxasition to, 21 ; last one * 
held nominates Crawford, 22 
Chalmers on leave for Clay's Compromise, 

275 
Chilton, of Kentucky, on tariff of 1828, ia5 
Choate, of Massachusetts, debates tariff of 

1832, 221, 222; Verplanck's bill, 306 
Claiborne on tariff of 1828, 129 
Clark, of New York, on tariff of 1824, 110 
Clay, Henry, a Presidential candidate 
from the West in 1824, 18-20 ; charge of 
bargain against, 30 ; appointed Secretary 
of State 1825, 26 ; talked of for Vice- Presi- 
dency, 29 ; debates tariff of 1816, 63, 64, m, 
66, 67 ; that of 1820, 75 ; that of 1824, 91, 98, 
99, 104-107 ; gives notice of his tariff bill, 
267 ; presents his Compromise tariff, 270; 
debates it, 270-273 ; his tariff bill reported, 
288; debates it, 288, 289, 292, 293, 294, 295, 
296, 355 : motives of, in tariff Compromise, 
292, 293, 294, 295; his Compromise bill 
adopted by House of Representatives as 
substitute for its own tariff bill, 321; 
passed House, 322; passed Senate after 
debate, 324, 325; becomes a law, 326 
Clay, of Alabama, on tariff of 1832, 221 
Clayton, of Delaware, on Foot resolution, 
but treats of power of removal, 184 ; on 
Force bill, 261, 288 ; on Clay tariff, 290, 293, 
325; offers resolutions on nature of the 
general government and debates them, 
253 
Clayton, of Georgia, on Force bill, 329 
Clymer on First tariff (1789), 44 
Coalition between Clay and Calhoun, 292 
Cobb, of Georgia, on tariff of 1824, 93 
Coffee, bill to reduce duties on, failed in 
House, but passed Senate, 127 (see Wines 
and Teas); passed House, 202; passed 
Senate, 211 
CoLcoCK, Judge, chairman of committee 

of nullification convention, 231 
Collection of revenue duties, bill for (see 

Force Bill) 
Compact, Constitutional (see Webster, Cal- 
houn, and Government) 
Compromise, Clay's tariff, 270; debate re- 
sumed, 276; motion to table negatived, 
276; referred to select committee, 276; 
reported, 288; adopted by House of 
Representatives as substitute for Ver- 
planck bill, 321 ; and passed House, 322; 
passed Senate, 324, 325 ; becomes a law, 
326 
Conner, of North Carolina, on tariff of 

1824, 92 
Convention, general, broached, 335 (see 
South Carolina and Nullification); Union 



INDEX. 



337 



protests against Nullification Ordinance, 
244 ; Southern, proposed by Georgia, 24;) ; 
Philadelphia Commercial, petition of, 83 ; 
nullification, assembled, 231 ; adopts 
Ordinance of Nullification, 233; re-as- 
sembles and rescinds, 327 
Cook, of Illinois, on tariff of 1824, 93 
Cooper, Dr., of South Carolina, 189 
Cotton, House accepts Senate amendment 
providing a three-cent duty on, 54 ; man- 
ufactures of, C6, 67, 70, 85 ; bagging, 92, 
98, 112, 117, 134 ; minumum, 103, 118 
Crawford, of Pennsylvania, on tariff of 

1830, 204 ; on second McDufiie tariff, 217 
Crawford, William Harris, of Georgia, 
Presidential candidate (1824) from the 
South, 18 ; nominated by minority Con- 
gressional caucus, 22; his failing health, 
23 ; loss of position in race, 23 ; cited as 
Secretary of Treasury, 87 ; suggests gen- 
eral constitutional convention, 235 
CUTHBERT on tariff of 1816, 09, 70 



Dallas on Force bill, 264, 266, 267, and 
partly on Poindexter resolution ; his 
motion to table Compromise tariff lost, 
276, 288 ; discusses it, 325 

Dalton appointed on Senate committee, 

. First Congress, to consider tariff amend- 
ment, 53 

Daniel on Force bill and change of Presi- 
dent's position, 330 

Davis, of Massachusetts, on Woollens bill, 
124; on tariff bill of 1828, 130, 131; on 
tariff bill of 1830, 203 ; on tariff of 1832, 
219, 224; on substitution of Clay's tariff 
for Verplanck's, 321 

Davis, of South Carolina, denies that that 
State meditated seizure of forts, 318 ; his 
motion tabled, 318 ; on Force bill, 319-321 

Dearborn, resolutions of, 212; debates 
tariff of 1832, 224; that of 1833 (Ver- 
planck's), 306 

Debate of 1830, chap, iii., 146; debate 
began, 156 (see Tariff, Revenue, Force 
bill, Compromise bill, etc., for other 
debates) 

Democrats, Republicans began to be so 
called, 17 ; name used at Philadelphia, 
November 5, 1823, 24 

Denny, of Pennsylvania, on Verplanck 
tariff, 308 

Depression of the country in 1820, evi- 
dence of, 82 

DiCKERSON, of New Jersey, on tariff of 
1824, 118 ; on that of 1828, 142, 143, 144 ; 
on Clay's request for leave to introduce 
tariff compromise, 274 



Dickson on Clay tariff, 322 

Direct Tax considered, 60; bill providing 
for, passed, 61 

Discrimination in favor of treaty nations 
(see Madison), measure providing for, in 
conference, 54; House yields in regard 
to, 55 

Drayton, of South Carolina, debates Wool- 
lens bill, 124 ; tariff of 1828, 137 ; speaks on 
crisis at Charleston, 189; on tariff of 1830, 
205 ; presents anti-nullification memorial, 
214 ; on Verplanck bill, 314 

DuRFEE, of Rhode Island, on tariff of 1823, 
87 

Duties, specific, favored, 38; general com- 
plaints as to height of general duties of 
tariff of 1789, 45; Tucker's proposition for 
reduction of, 49 (see Revenue and varioua 
Tariff items) 



Eighteen and Thirty, debate of, chap. 

iii., 146 ; debate begins, 156 ; tariff bill of, 

201-209 (see McDuffie) 
Elliott, of Georgia, on tariff of 1824; 118 
Ellsworth, member of Senate committee, 

First Congress, to consider tariff amend- 
ment, 53 
Enquirer, Richmond, conflict of, with Nor 

tional Intelligencer, 18 
Enumerated Articles, debate on, on 

Fitzsimons's proposition, 35 
Equivalence, Benton's sixteen resolutions 

concerning, 211 
Eustis, of Massachusetts, on tariff of 1823, 

87 
Evans, of Maine, on tariff of 1832, 220 
Everett, Edward, on tariff of 1830, 205; 

that of 1832, 224 
Everett, Horace, on Clay tariff, 322 
EwiNG, on Force bill, 288; on Compromise 

tariff, 325 

F. 

FiTzsiMONS, of Pennsylvania, on tariff bill 
of First Congress (1789), 35; advocates a 
permanent system, 36; committee of 
whole add his list of tariff articles to 
Madison's, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 
52 ; appointed on first Ways and Means 
Committee, 55 

Foot, of Connecticut, on tariff of 1824, 91, 
101 ; on resolution of, 156 ; on leave for 
Clay's tariff bill, 275 

Force, or collection, bill, rejported in Sen- 
ate, 248; Clay's dilatory motion on, agreed 
to, 250 ; discussed, 254 ; provisions of, 254- 
250; motion to postpone lost, 256; Wil- 
kins's amendments to, adopted, 269; de- 
bate on, resumed, 275; passed Senate, 



22 



338 



INDEX. 



288; reported in House, 316; debated, 
316, 328, 329-331 ; passes House, 331 ; be- 
comes a law, 333 

Forsyth on Clay's request for leave to in- 
troduce tarifE bill, 273 ; on Force bill, 
286 ; on Compromise tariff, 288, 289, 325 ; 
on nature of the general government, 
304 

FoEWARD, of Pennsylvania, on tarifE of 
1828, 132 

Foster on Force bill, 330 

Fourteenth Congress characterized, 62 

Free Trade, theory of, and difficulty of 
adaptation, 33 ; freedom of commerce 
asserted by Madison as a general prin- 
ciple in first tariff debate, 35; conven- 
tion, 195 

Frelinghuysen on Force bill, 258; on 
Compromise tariff, 325 

Fuller, of Massachusetts, on tariff of 1824, 
99, 101 

G. 

Gale on First tariff, 40 

Garnett, of Virginia, on tariff of 1824, 91 

Garrison, William Lloyd, establishes the 
Liberator, 193 

Gaston, "William, of North Carolina, on 
tariff of 1816, 66, 69, 70 

Georgia, action of legislature and anti- 
tariff convention on nullification, 233 

Gerry on First tariff, 47, 52 

Gilmore, of Pennsylvania, on Verplanck 
tariff, 306 

Goodhue, of Massachusetts, on First tariff, 
39, 42, 44, 47, 49 ; on tonnage duty, 56 

GoRHAM, on tariff of 1823, 87 ; on tariff of 
1830, 203 

Government, general, the, resolutions on 
character and limitations of, offered, 250, 
252, 253 ; debated, 254, 296-304 ; laid on 
table in Senate, 304 

Grundy, Felix, of Tennessee, on Foot reso- 
lution, 184 ; offers resolutions on nature 
of general government of United States 
and discusses them, 252-254, 258, 264, 265, 
267, 286, 288 ; cited on Hayiie's speeches 
and South Carolina's position, 330 

H. 

Haile, of Mississippi, on tariff of 1828, 136 
Hamilton, Secretary Alexander, report of, 
on manufactures, to Second Congress, 59 ; 
cited, 287 
Hamilton, James, of South Carolina, on 
tariff of 1828, 137, 139 ; urges nullification 
at Walterborough, 151 ; recommends in 
executive message calling nullification 
convention, 230 ; president of convention 



and opening address, 231 ; his message 
to reconvened legislature, 236 ; recalls 
convention and resigns presidency, 327 

Harper, Chancellor, drafts Ordinance of 
Nullification, 232 

Haurisburg, convention at, effect of, 147 

Hartley, advocates protection, 36, 44 

Hayne, Robert Young, debates tariff of 
1824, 117, 120 ; that of 1828, 142, 144, 145 ; 
meetings at residence of, 149 ; debates 
Foot resolution (1830), 158-100, 163-168, 
174-181 ; speaks at Charleston on crisis, 
189 ; reports Ordinance of Nullification, 
231 ; writes exposition of principles for 
nullification convention, 232 ; chosen 
Governor, 242 ; his address, 242 ; accepts 
presidency of South Carolina nullifica- 
tion convention, 327 

Hemp, sectional lines on, 42 ; referred to, 
85, 102, 134, 143 

Hill on Compromise tariff, 289 

Hoffman, on tariff of 1828, 131 ; on that of 
1832, 224 

Holmes on Foot resolution (1830), 156, 158, 
184 ; on tariff of 1832, 228 ; on Force bill, 
258 ; on Clay's request for leave to intro- 
duce tariff bill, 275; on Compromise 
tariff, 276, 2.88, 289, 325 

Howard, of Maryland, on Verplanck 
tariff, 312 

Huger, of South Carolina, on tariff of 1816, 
65 

Huntington on First tariff bill, 43 

HusKissoN cited, 205 

I. 

Ingham, of Pennsylvania, on tariff of 1816, 
64, 65; on Woollens bill, 125; on tariff 
bill of 1828, 131 

Insurrection, Nat Turner's, 195-198 

Iron, bar or pig, additional duty on, 85; 
in bolts and bars, 99, 111 ; pig, 127, 128 

IsACKS on tariff of 1821, 103 

J. 

Jackson, Andrew, Presidential candidate 
in 1824, from the West, 18 ; his claims, 19 ; 
his qualities, 20 ; nominated by Tennessee 
legislature, 21 ; nominated with Calhoun 
as Vice-President by Tammany, 23 ; has 
plurality in electoral college, 1824-5, 24 ; 
defeated by combination of Adams and 
Clay, 24 ; a candidate in 1828, 28 ; conflict 
with Clay over the "bargain," 28 (see 
"Bargain") ; his election to Presidency, 
31 ; character of his inaugural reception, 
32 ; breach in cabinet of, 188, 193 ; nomi- 
nated for President by Democratic party 
convention, 199 ; Aigilance of, 238 ; hid 



INDEX. 



339 



proclamation against nullifiers, 240; cited 
on Hayne's speeches and South Caro- 
lina's position, 330 

Jackson, of Georgia, on First tariff, 45, 47, 
48, 49, 50 ; appointed on first Ways and 
Means Committee, 55 ; speaks on tonnage 
duty, 56 

Jenifek, of Maryland, on Verplanck tariff, 
308 

Johnson, of Kentucky, speaks, 117 

Johnston, J. S., of Louisiana, on tariff of 
1824, 121 ; on Foot resolution (1830), 185 

K. 

Kane, of Illinois, on Foot resolution (1830), 
156 ; on Clay's request for leave to intro- 
duce tariff bill, 275 ; on Compromise 
tariff, 288 

King on leave for Clay's tariff bill, 275 ; on 
Compromise tariff, 276 

Knight on tariff of 1828, 144 

L. 

Lands, public, note, 333 

Lawrence, of New York, on First tariff, 
35, 39, 40, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52 ; appointed on 
first Ways and Means Committee, 55 

Lead, 141 

Lee appointed on Senate special commit- 
tee of First Congress to consider tariff 
amendment, 53 ; speaks on tariff, 52 

Leigh, Benjamin Watkins, commissioner 
to South Carolina from Virginia to ar- 
range for peace between South Carolina 
and the United States in 1833, 326 ; suc- 
cessful, 327 

Leigh, jiroposition of, in Virginia constitu- 
tional convention, rejected, 155 

Letcher, of Kentucky, moves Clay's Com- 
promise bill as substitute for Verplanck 
tariff bill, 321 ; his motion adopted, 321 ; 
speaks on his (Clay) bill, 322 

Lewis, of Alabama, on tariff of 1832, 222 

Livermore on First tariff, 52 ; on tariff of 
1824, 101 ; appointed on first Ways and 
Means Committee, 55 

Livingston on tariff of 1828, 137, 184 

Lodge, Henry Cabot, quoted in note, 326 

Lowndes, William, as chairman of Ways 
and Means Committee, reports tariff bill 
of 1816, 63 ; debates it, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71 ; 
debates Baldwin tariff, 71 ; cited, 213 

LowRiE on First tariff, 46 

M. 

Macon, Nathaniel, ex-Speaker and ex- 
Senator, cited, 329 

Madison, James, introduces the subject of 
revenue in First Congress, 34 ; description 



of, 34 (see Free trade) ; leader there, 34 ; 
speaks on tariff, 35, 36-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 
43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ; on discrimi- 
nation in duties, 56 ; appointed on first 
Ways and Means Committee, 55 ; tempo- 
rarily gives up discriminating duties and 
advocates reciprocity, 57 ; advocates re- 
peal of duty on distilled spirits, 58 ; in 
Third Congress, introduces resolutions 
providing for discriminating duties, 59 

Mallaey on tariff of 1824, 91, 96, 99, 111 ; 
on Woollens bill, 123, 124 ; reports tariff 
bill of 1828, 127 ; debates it, 127, 128, 136 

Malt liquors, taken up in tariff discus- 
sion of First Congress, 40 

Mangum, Willie P., notable speech oa 
tariff of 1832, 228 ; debates various resolu- 
tions, 254 ; motion to postpone Force bill 
lost, 256, 264 ; on Compromise tariff, 325 

Manufactures, Hamilton's report on, 59; 
petition for protection of, 72 ; stimulated 
by tariff of 1824, 146 

Martin, of South Carolina, on tariff of 
1828, 139 

Martindale, of New York, on tariff of 
1824, 96, 97, 98 ; on tariff of 1828, 131 

Marvin on tariff of 1824, 99 

McDurriE, George, discusses tariff of 1824, 
91, 94, 111, 113, 114 ; tariff of 1828, 137, 138, 
139 ; reports tariff of 1830, 201 ; debates it, 
201, 203, 204, 206, 207 ; replies to Appleton, 
213 ; reports second tariff bill, 215 ; de- 
bates it, 215-217; debates bill of 1832, 
225-227 ; member of committee which 
reports Ordinance of Nullification, 231 ; 
writes address to people of United States 
on behalf of South Carolina, 232; on 
Force bill, 321, 328, 329 ; on Clay tariff, 322 

McKiM on tariff of 1824, 102 

McKiNLEY, of Alabama, on Foot resolu- 
tion (1830), 156 

McLane on Baldwin tariff, 75, 76 ; oa 
tariff of 1824, 96 ; on Woollens bill, 125, 
126 

Mercer on tariff of 1824, 93, 101, 111 

Mercury, Charleston, advocates separation 
and war, 147 

Miller presents to Senate resolution of 
South Carolina legislature, 244 ; debates 
Force bill, 256, 264, 208, 269, 286 

Milnor on tariff of 1816, 66 

Missouri, debates on admission of, how 
they affected public sentiment, 16 

Mitchell, Thomas R., contradicts Hayne, 
150 ; discusses tariff of 1832, 219 

Molasses, second article of First tariff, 
debated in connection with rum, 39; 
reduction of duty on, 50 ; duty on, held as 
rod by enemies of bill of 1828, 137, 143, 144 



340 



INDEX. 



MoNEOE, President James, cited, 87 ; when 
ex-President accepts presidency of Vir- 
ginia constitutional convention, 153 ; re- 
signs, 153 

Moore, of Alabama, on Force bill, 276 ; on 
Compromise tariff, 276, 289 

MooEE, of Pennsylvania, on First tariff 
bill, 42 

MooRE on tariff of 1828, 134 

Morris appointed on Senate special com- 
mittee of First Congress to consider tariff 
amendment, 53 

N. 

National Intelligencer clashes with Rich- 
mond Inquirer, 18 

National Republicans, national conven- 
tion of, 195 

Nat Turner, insurrection of, 195, 198 

New England, change of position of, on 
tariff explained, 142 

Nullification (see chap, v., 230) ; conven- 
tion carried by nullifiers, 231 ; nullifica- 
tion convention assembled, proceedings 
of, 231-233; adjourns subject to recall, 
233 ; committee of, 231 ; Ordinance of, 
reported, 231 ; x»pular judgment on, 233 ; 
convention of, enacts test, replevin, and 
militia laws, 237 ; according to Clay put 
down by public opinion, 272 ; Ordinance 
of, rescinded, 327 

O. 

Oedinajstce of 1787, who was the author of. 
note, 187 (see Benton, Hayne, and Web- 
ster) 

Ordinance of Nullification reported, 
231 ; adopted, 233 ; before Southern legis- 
latures, 243 ; rescinded, 327 ; new ordi- 
nances, 327 

Owen on tariff of 1824, 97 



Page, of Virginia, presides in House ef 
Representatives of First Congress at first 
tariff debate, 34, 52 ; speaks on national 
university, 56 
Parker on First tariff, 35, 44, 51 
Parris, of Maine, on tariff of 1828, 142 
Parties in transition, 15 ; violence of, 23, 

30 (see Democrat and Whig) 
Patriot, Charleston, contention of, as to 

general welfare clause, 18 
Patton, of Virginia, on Verplanck bill, 315 
Pearce, of Rhode Island, on Verplanck 

tariff, 313 
Pickering on tariff of 1816, 66, 68 
PiNCKNEY, H. L., elected Mayor of Charles- 
ton, 200 
Pitkin on tariff of 1816, 66, 67, 68 



PoiNDEXTER, of Mississippi, on tariff of 
1832, 228 ; on Force bill and various reso- 
lutions, 251; offers resolutions toucliing 
President's military orders, 201 ; resolu- 
tion of, debate on, 205 ; on Clay's re- 
quest for leave to introduce tariff bill, 
273 ; on Force bill, 287, 288, 289 
PoLK, James K., on Verplanck tariff, 308 
Preface, general, 9-11 ; to present vol- 
ume, 13 
Press, how aligned on protection and 

State rights, 18 
Proclamation, President Jackson's, 240 
Protection suggested by Fitzsimons, 36, 
37, 38; denounced, 75; Mallar>''s two 
days' defence of, 127 ; revival of, 116 ; 
opposition to, 146 ; favored by North 
Carolina Senate, 148 ; strong in Virginia, 
148 ; whether abandoned after 1842 by 
adoption of Clay Compromise, 294 



QuiNCY, Josiah, cited by Hayne in reply 
to Webster, 167 

R. 

Randolph, John, heads State rights reac- 
tionary movement, 29 ; speaks, 70, 71 ; on 
tariff of 1824, 111, 113 

Realignment on tariff question, 126 

Reed, of Massachusetts, on tariff of 1824, 
102. Ill ; on that of 1828, 134 ; on Ver- 
planck tariff, 308 

Reply to Hayne, Webster's, 168 (see Web- 
ster) 

Revenue, under Articles of Confederation 
vexatious subject, 33 ; jxiwer of Congress 
under new Constitution concerning 
which, 34 ; first question debated in 
committee of whole, First Congress, 34 ; 
discussed, 35-72; temporary system of. 
advocated by Madison, 35 ; alignment of 
sections on in first debate, 38 (see Tariff 
and various items of) ; additional revenue 
bill of First Congress, lost, 56 ; war tariff 
of 1812, 61 ; tariff bill of 1816 reported, 63 ; 
passed, 71 ; supplementary act passed, 71 ; 
tariff bill of 1820 (Baldwin) defeated in 
Senate, 82; tariff of 1823 defeated, 85; tariff 
of 1824 reported, 88 ; debated in House, 
89-115 ; in Senate, 116-120 ; becomes law, 
122 ; Woollens bill reported, 122 ; debated 
in House, 123-125 ; considered in Senate, 
125, 126; defeated, 120; tariff bill of 1823 
reported, 127 ; debated in House, 127-140 ; 
passes House, 140 ; debated in Senate, 
141-145 ; passes Senate and becomes law, 
145 ; tariff bill of 1830 reported, 201 ; de- 
bated in House, 201-208 ; passes House, 
208 ; defeated in Senate, 208 ; resolutions 



INDEX. 



341 



of Bouldin and Dearborn, 212 ; second 
McDuffie tariff reported, 215 ; debated, 
215-218; defeated, 218; tariff of 1832 
(Treasury) reported, 215 ; Stewart's sub- 
stitute for, 218 ; bill debated in House, 
217-227 ; passes House, 227 ; debated in 
Senate, 227-229; passes Senate and be- 
comes law, 229 ; Compromise tariff of 
1833, 270 ; debated, 270 ; Webster's resolu- 
tions on, 275 ; motion to table Compro- 
mise bill negatived, 276; Compromise 
bill referred to select committee, 276 ; 
reported, 288; Verplanck tariff bill re- 
ported, 304 ; debated, 305 ; reported to 
House from committee of whole, 316 ; 
debated, 316; motions concerning, de- 
feated or withdrawn, 316; changes in, 
317, 318 ; Clay's Compromise adopted as 
substitute for Verplanck bill, 321, and 
passes House of Representatives, 322 ; 
passes Senate, 324, 325; becomes a law, 
326 

Rives, William C,, debates Force bill, 277- 
279 

RoBBiNS, of Rhode Island, on Foot resolu- 
tion (1830), 185 

Root, of New York, on tariff of 1816, 67, 68 ; 
on that of 1832, 224 ; on Verplanck tariff, 
307 

Ross on tariff of 1816, 67 ; on that of 1824, 
101 

Rowan, of Kentucky, 143, 184 

Rum, first article considered in First tariff 
debate, 39 ; great source of sectional dis- 
agreement, 46 



Salt, alarms excited as to duty on, 43 : bill 
to reduce syjecial duties on, passed Sen- 
ate, 126 ; general bill to reduce duty on, 
laid on table, 127 ; bill to reduce, passed 
House, 209 ; Benton's efforts regarding 
reduction unavailing in Senate, 210 ; 
angry debate on, 211 

Scott on tariff, 43 

Scott, General Winfield, commands at 
Charleston, 239 

Secession, rightful remedy for ills com- 
plained of by States, not nullification, 
201 ; right of, 268 

Secretaey of the Treasury, reixjrt of, 
212 

Seminoles, affair of, Jackson and Calhoun, 
192 

Senate, power of, to originate revenue 
measures, 293 

Shepard, William B., on Verplanck tariff, 
312 

Sheffey on tariff of 1816, 65 



Sherman, on First tariff, 39; on tonnage 
duty, 56 

Silsbek, of Massachusetts, on Baldwin 
tariff, 76 ; on Compromise tariff, 288, 325 

SiNNiCKSON on First tariff, 52 

Slaves, Virginia proposes a tax on im- 
ported, 51 ; property in, and representa- 
tion of, 153 

Sjiitii, of Maryland, presents to House pe- 
tition on decline of trade, 38 ; speaks on 
First tariff, 40, 43, 54 ; on tariff of ISIG, 63, 
65 ; appointed on first Ways and Means 
Committee, 55 ; on tariff of 1824, 120 ; on 
that of 1828, 142, 143, 144 

Smith, of South Carolina, appointed on 
first Ways and Means Committee, 55; 
speaks on tonnage duties, 56 ; on Foot 
resolution (1830), 184; letter of, against 
nullification, 190; on Compromise tariff, 
288, 289, 291 

Smyth, of Virginia, on tariff bill of 1823, 86 

Southampton County, Virginia, insurrec- 
tion in, 195-198 (see Nat Turner) 

South Carolina, meetings in, condemn 
tariff of 1828, 146 ; focus of excitement 
over tariff, 149 ; legislature of, meets and 
consider crisis, 151; protest of, 152; 
States in sympathy with, or opjxised to, 
191 ; address of Congressional delegation 
of, 199 ; legislature of, calls convention, 
2;30 ; convention assembles, 231, and 
adopts Nullification Ordinance, 233; 
Union party in, its course on convention 
issue, 230 ; legislature of, again convenes, 

236 ; convention of, enacts replevin law, 

237 ; military armament in, 238 ; resolu- 
tions of legislature of, presented to 
United States Senate, 244 ; rescinds her 
Ordinance of Nullification, 327 

Southern interests in tariff, 142 (see 
Hayne) 

Southern Speakers, most prominent 
fault of, 109 

Spaight, of North Carolina, on repeal of 
duty on salt, 211 

Spirits, distilled, act concerning, repealed, 
and new act passed, 58 ; debates in 17S9 
and 1824 opened with subject of, 91 ; ad- 
ditional duty on, 135 

Sprague, of Maine, on Clay's request for 
leave to introduce tariff compromise, 
274 ; on nature of the government, 304 : 
on tariff compromise, 325 

Sprague, of Rhode Island, on tariff of 1828, 
112, 184, 186 

Stanberry, of Ohio, on tariff of 1828, 133 

Steel described as in infancy of manu- 
facture, 41 

Stevenson on tariff, 101, 128 



342 



INDEX. 



Stewart, on tariff of 1824, 101, 111; on 
Woollens bill, 12-1; on tariff of 1828, 137, 
138 ; presents substitute for tariff bill of 
1832, 218 ; debates bill, 218 ; debates Ver- 
planck tariff, 318 

Strong on tariff of 1816, 63 

Sugar considered in First tariff debate, 40 

Sutherland, of Pennsylvania, on tariff of 
1832, 222 



Tammany, Society of, endorses President 
Jackson against nullification, 234 

Tariff, the, of 1789; the first, 33-55 (see 
Kevenue) ; debate on, begins, 34 ; passes 
House of Representatives, 53 ; passes Sen- 
ate with amendments, 53 ; House agrees 
to certain amendments, 54 ; becomes a 
law, 55 (see Discrimination, Rum, Mo- 
lasses, AYines, Sugar, Candles, Malt 
Liquors, and other titles in this index) ; 
additional revenue bill, second session 
of First Congress lost, 56 ; war tariff of 
1812, CI ; tariff of 1816 reported, 63 ; passed, 
71 ; supplementai-y act passes, 71 ; Bald- 
win tariff of 1820 reported, 73; defeated, 
82 ; tariff of 1823 defeated, 85 ; tariff of 
1824 reported, 88 ; debated in House, SO- 
US ; passes Senate, 120 ; becomes law, 
122 ; Woollens bill reported, 122 ; debated 
in House, 123-125 ; considered in Senate, 
125, 126 ; defeated, 126 ; bill of 1828 re- 
ported, 127 ; debated in House, 127-140 ; 
passes House, 140 ; debated in 'Senate, 
141-145 ; passes Senate and becomes law, 
145 ; tariff of 1828 presented by a Georgia 
jury, 148; convention of the friends of, 
195 ; tariff bill of 1830 reported, 201 ; de- 
bated in House, 201-208 ; defeated in 
Senate, 208 ; resolutions of Bouldin and 
Dearborn, 212 ; second McDuffie tariff 
bill reported, 215 ; debated, 215-218 ; de- 
feated, 218 ; tariff of 1832 reported, 215 ; 
Stewart's substitute for, 218 ; bill debated, 
217-227 ; passes House, 227 ; debated in 
Senate, 227-229; passes Senate and be- 
comes law, 229 ; Clay's Compromise in- 
troduced and debated, 270 ; Webster's 
resolutions on, 275 ; motion to table tariff 
compromise tabled, 276 ; Compromise 
bill referred to select committee, 276 ; 
reported, 288; Verplanck tariff bill re- 
jxDrted, 304 ; debated, 305 ; reported from 
committee of whole, 316; motions con- 
cerning, lost or withdrawn, 316 ; changes 
in, 317, 318; Clay's Compromise bill 
adopted as substitute for, 321 ; and passes 
House, 322 ; and passes Senate, 324, 325 ; 
becomes a law, 325 



Tattnall on tariff of 1823, 86 

Taylor, John, '-of Caroline," on tariff of 

1824, 118 
Tazewell, of Virginia, on tariff of 1828, 

143 
Teas, bill reducing duties on, failed in 

House, 127 (see Wines and Coffee) ; 

passed, 202, 211 
Texas, acquisition of, mooted, 152 
Thacher on First tariff, 39 
Thompson, of Georgia, on tariff of 1828, 139 ; 

on salt duty, 212 
Tod, of Pennsylvania, reports and debates 

tariff bill of 1823, 84, 85 ; reports tariff bill 

of 1824, 88 ; debates it, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 

101, 102 
Tomlinson on tariff of 1824, 92 
Tonnage, duty on, considered, 36; South 

for low, 51 ; House refuses to reduce, 51 ; 

bill reported and passed after amend- 
ment, 55 ; subject of, renewed, 56 ; a new 

bill passed, 57 
Tracy, of New York, on tariff of 1824, 91, 

92 
Trimble speaks, 115 
Tucker, of South Carolina, urges delay in 

consideration of tariff of First Congress, 

36 ; on that tariff, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49 ; on 

salt duty, 212 
Tyler, John, speaks against Baldwin 

tariff ; on that of 1832, 227 ; on Force bill, 

258, 260, 264, 265 ; on Compromise tariff, 

288 

U. 

Udree on tariff of 1824, 111 
Union, party of, in South Carolina, op- 
posed to tariff, 147 ; meetings of, 200 



V. 

Valuation, home, test vote of, on Clay 
Compromise tariff, 292 

Van Buren, Martin, Senator from New 
York, supports Jackson in 1828, 29 

Van Wyck on tariff of 1823, 88 

Verplanck reports tariff bill, 304 

ViNiNG appointed on first Ways and Means 
Committee, 55 

Vinton on Verplanck tariff, 309 

Virginia, legislature of, condemns tariff 
of 1828, 146 ; constitutional convention 
of, considers slavery, Id" ; adopts Article 
III as compromise proposition, 155 ; legis- 
lature of, holds emancipation debate, 
198 ; arranges, by commissioner to South 
Carolina, for peace, 326 

VoN Holst, quoted, 326, in note 



INDEX. 



343 



w. 

Wadsworth, on First tariflf, 47 ; appointed 
on first ^^■ays and Means Committee, 55 

Ward, of Massachusetts, on tariff of 1S16, 
67, 68 

Ward, of New York, on Verplanck tariff, 
314 

Wayne, of Georgia, on tariff of 1830, 205 

Ways and Means, Committee of, first a,^ 
pointed, 55 ; members of, 55 

Webster, Daniel, debates tariff of 1816, 66, 
67, 68 ; tariff of 1824, 99, 102, 103, 107-109, 
111 ; votes for Woollens bill, 125 ; debates 
tariff of 1S2S, 142, 143 ; Foot resolution 
(1830), 160-103, lGS-174 (famous reply to 
Hayne) , 181 ; Force bill and various reso- 
lutions, 254, 201 ; speaks on Clay's request 
for leave to introduce tariff compromise, 
274 ; on resolutions on tariff, 275 ; which 
were tabled, 277 ; on Force bill, 282-286 ; 
on Compromise tariff, 290, 293, 294, 295, 
S25; on nature of the general govern- 
ment, 303 

Whigs, party of, origin, 15 ; not lineal suc- 
cessor of Federal party, 16 

Whiskey, Benton's idea of "healthful- 
ness" of, 141 

White, of Louisiana, on Verplanck tariff, 
308 

White, of Virginia, on First tariff, 35, 36, 52 

Whitman, of Massachusetts, on Baldwin 
tariff, 76 

WiCKLiTFE, of Kentucky, on tariff of 1824, 
91 



Wilde, of Georgia, on tariff of 1816, 65 ; on 
that of 1832, 221 ; on Verplanck tariff, 
309 

WiLKiNS supports Force bill, 256, 257 

Williamson, of North Carolina, on ton- 
nage duty, 56 

Wines considered in First tariff, 40, 45; 
bill to reduce duty on, failed in House 
after passing Senate, 127 

Woodbury, of New Hampshire, on tariff 
of 1828, 144, 184 

Wool, unmanufactured, reduced duty on, 
119 ; raw, value of, 130, 144 

WooL-GROWEBS, charge against, 132 

Woollens, considered in Fourteenth Con- 
gress, 63, 68; referred to, 85; effort to 
lower proposed duty on, failed in House, 
92 ; House receded on, 122 ; minima of, 
debated, and principle adopted in House, 
136 ; Senate changes specific to ad valo- 
rem duty, 141 

Woollens Bill, the, reported, 122; de- 
bated, 123-125; considered in Senate, 
125, 126 ; defeated by casting vote of Vice- 
President Calhoun, 126 

Wright, of New York, on tariff of 1828, 
129, 130, 136 ; on Compromise tariff, 290, 
325 

Wright, of Ohio, speaks, 138 



Yeas and Nays (see Ayes and Noes) 
Young on tariff of 1830, 205 



THE END. 



62f 



'J- ^- 



-^^' 



'^. "^ 



,0 o 






■:^'' 



•^^ 



'^. 



OO 



^, .A^^' 



o>- 






•A^^' 



,V <f>. 



oo^ 



^, v-^' 






.^^ 



V 'i' 



ci-, -- 






.■\ 



,^v ... 



■-^^ 



o>' 









v> '^.^ 



-.-^ .^^■ 



,-v 



>- V'-' 



.H t. 






■-.• .Vv^ 






a\ 



